COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  ©f  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions,  in  addition, 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  international  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research." 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright 
irifriii^6rriGrit« 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  involve 
violation  of  the  copvriaht  law. 


Author: 


Governors'  Tri-State  Milk 
Commission 


Tri-9t;:itP  Milk 


Place: 


mm  •  I 

Harrisburg 

Date: 

1917 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


MASTER  NEQATIVE  i 


OfUGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FUIED  -  EXISTING  BIBUOQRAPHIC  RECORD 


BUSINESS 

310 
674 


1 1 


Gbvemors'  tri-state  milk  commissioii.  ^ 

...  Beport  of  the  (Jovernors'  tri-state  milk  commission 
to  ...  governor  of  Pennsylvania  ...  governor  of  Maryland 
...  governor  of  Delaware  by  the  Milk  commissions  of 
Pennsylvania  ...  Maryland  ...  Delaware  ...  Harrisburg, 
Pa.,  W.  S.  Eay,  state  printer,  1917. 

70  p.  fold,  maps,  diigrs.  23^.  (Petuisylvania.  Dept  of  agriculture. 
Bulletin  no.  287) 

X  Milk  supply— Delaware,  jl.  Delaware^Milk  supplvi  2.  Milk  suddIv— 
Maryland.  [2.  Maryland—Milk  supplyj  3.  Milk  supply— Pennsylvania. 
iJ.  Pennsylvania— Milk  supplyj  *^ 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


RLM  SIZE:  3S>i^^ 


REDUCTION  RATIO: 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:  lA  (Q    IB  UB 


DATE  FILMED:  lyitt^ 


INITIALS  • 


U/.u/ 


TRACKING  #  : 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES.  BETHLEHEM.  PA. 


m 

mm 
mm 


01 

o 


■lllllllllllll  ^IhnHMT 

Sf '|T1 

"O  ^ 


r\3, 

CaI, 
CJl 

C3PIM 
iO 


CJl, 

3 


> 

CD 

o  m 

(D  O 


3" 


X 

ISi 


8 

3 

3 


10 
O1 


o 


^1^  1^  j 


10 


1:^  1^ 


1.0  mm 


.0  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCOCFGHUKiMNO(>QltSTUVWXVZ 
«lK«tiWiPlnHiapqnliM«i)iyzt234567890 


ABCDEFGHUKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 


ABCDEFGHrjKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghiiklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
1234567890 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHUKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
atxxiefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
1234567890 


4.- 


I  ~  i 
O  CD  5 

in 


is  ^^^^ 


CJl 

^31 


1^ 


4 


LIB  RAH  Y 


Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania 


DEPARTXEITT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 


REPORT 


Tri-State  l^JUk 


lllll 


ission 


HOirORABLE  MARTIN  G.  I  RUMBAUGH, 
GoYemor  of  Pennsylvania 

HONORABLE  EMERSON  C.  HARRINGTOHt 

Govvmor  of  Maiylaad 

HONORABLE  JOHN  G.  TOWNSEND, 
Goremor  of  D  elairara 


MILK  COMMISSIONS  OF 


Morrb  T.  PUUlpt 
0.  E.  Oarothen 


Bsrtsuui  A> 


Oeorgtt  H.  KaU 
Harry  Hayward 
Frederic  Brady 


Officers  of  the  Governors'  Tri-State  Milk  CommiasioA 

OZiSSE  LTHDOK unit         0.  SBTOEBSON  8UmB       OKMUOrOK  Mgfyf 


HABBI8BUBG,  PA.:, 

nAMUn  BAT,  STACT  PBIlfini 


mwWilifmWiMfm 


School  of  Business 


Commonweaith  of  Pennsylvania 


DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 


Of  HO^^^^ 


OF  THB  •  ' 


Governors'  Tri- State  Milk 

Commission 


SO 


HONORABLE  MARTIN  G.  BRUMBAUGH, 
GoYemor  of  PeonsylYania 

HONORABLE  EMERSON  C.  HARRINGTON, 

Governor  of  MsrylAad 

HONORABLE  JOHN  G.  TOWNSEND, 
Governor  of  Delaware 


MILK  COMMISSIONS  OF 
ranroTLYANiA  mabtlasb  muLWMm 

KmctIs  T.  FhilUps  O.  K.  Alfwd  §««i»  JL  BUI 

0.  S.  Oarothen  D*  0.  Hany  maxrf  MasmtaA 

0.  Henderson  Snpple«  Hwrtman  X.  Vaxttam  Frederiek  Brady 

Clyde  Lyaden  Xiac  Barry  B^WItt(ur  Samael  M.  Hamngton 

it' 


Officers  of  the  Governors'  Tri-State  Milk  Commissioii 

CLYDE  LTITDOV  JUOTO  0.  HEHOEBSOV  SVFPI£B        OUL&EKCE  SEABS  KATES 


HARRISBUBG,  PA.: 

WM.  STANLBY  BAY.  STATB  PBIinSB 
1017 


Summary. 


Page. 

Foreword,   g 

Cominittee  Governor's  Tri-State  Milk  Commission   7 

Production  Costs:   g 

Productiou  Costs,  1916   iq 

Otiier  Information  Desired    12 

The  Increasing  Costs  of  Production    14 

National  Factors  in  IiOCill  Milk  Costs  ,   15 

Costs  Compared  

Prof.  Basmussen's  EstuH^^Vresent  Production  Costs   17 

Price  Beoeiyed  for  Milk    ig 

The  Tenant  Farmer  and  the  Milk  Supply   2I 

Butter  Fat  Should  Not  Be  the  &6kt  Test  in  Purchase  PHee   22 

Price  to  the  Farmer  and  the  Maintenance  of  Supply........   M 

How  Ph>fitB  Can  Be  Increased  by  Lowering  Costs   a| 

Statement  by  Fred  Basmuftsen,   ,   n 

Statement  Made  by  G.  B.  Wolcott    ay 

Distribution :  * . ,  ^   |g 

Wilmington  Milk  Supply   31 

Baltimore's  Milk  Supply   31 

Cost  of  Transportation   31 

The  Cost  of  Distribution   j|g 

Recommendations  of  Commission.. .r..  ,  |g 

The  Alternatives,   '     ^ 

Milk  Distribution  a  Public  Utility..   ^ 

Price  to  Consumer   ^ 

Publicity  of  Receipts  of  Milk   |0 

Surplus  Milk  Supply:   ^ 

Solutions  of  the  Surplus  Problem   g| 

Grading:   ^ 

Standardization  of  Fat   ^ 

Proposed  Law  Relating  to  Milk  and  Food  Products   fl| 

The  Food  Value  of  Milk  in  its  Relation  to  Price  '.   fl 

Summary  of  Becommendations   m 


(8) 


FOREWORD  * 


HOiJORABLE  MARTIN  G.  BRUMBAUGH, 
Qovermr  af  PenmyilmnM. 

Sir:  The  members  of  your  Commission  met  in  Philadelphia  on  Oc- 
tober 24,  1916,  on  the  call  of  Mr.  C.  E.  Carothera.  The  chairmam  of 
tlie  commissions  appointed  by  the  Goy^ors  of  Matyland  and  Dela- 
ware had  caUed  the  first  meeting  of  their  commisaions  at  the  same 
place  and  honr.  After  reading  of  instructions  and  credentials  and 
aftar  the  consideration  of  the  identical  problems  confronting  each 
of  the  three  commissions,  it  was  decided  to  effect  a  joint  organiaa- 
H  tion  for  the  effective  prosecution  of  our  work.  The  officers  choam . 
for  the  joint  commission  were:  Clyde  L.  King,  Chairman;  C.  Baider- 
son  Supplee,  Secretajy-Treasnrer  ;  Clarence  Sears  Kates,  Honorary 
Financial  Secretary. 

This  joint  organisation,  designated  as  "The  Governors'  Tri-Stat€ 
Milk  Commission,"  was  decided  upon  as  the  most  economical  means 
and  also  the  most  effective  method  of  carrying  out  the  duties  yon 
charged  us  with.  All  of  our  deliberations  have  been  in  Joint  session 
and  our  investigations  aU  conducted  undw  these  jMnt  am^cea  Your 
Commission  has  mm  tie  honor  to  snbnut  this  report,  identical  wiA 
the  report  concnrrwitly  submitted  to  their  respective  Governors  by 
the  Commissions  of  Maryland  and  Delaware. 

Not  <mly  are  the  reports  of  the  three  commissions  identical,  bat 
the  conclusions  and  the  recommendations  contained  thmin  iiate 
been  unanimously  adopted      all  the  members  of  aU  three  commis- 
"  sions. 

PnbUc  hearings  were  held  in  joint  session  at  Philadelphia  on  No- 
▼ember  3  and  November  20,  and  in  Baltimore,  on  November  15.  In 
addition  to  this,  the  Commission  has  taken  testimony  from  many  ex- 
perts. The  work  was  divided  up  amon-  the  following  committees, 
each  of  which  has  had  complete  charge  of  the  sections  of  this  repoti 
corresponding  thereto.  The  Commissions,  howew,  have,  as  a  whole, 
acted  upon  the  Committees'  findings  and  recommendations,  making 
thmn  their  own. 


4, 


THE  COmiiirTEES  OF  THE  GOVERNORS'  TRI-STATE  MILK 

COMMISSION. 


Prodttctioii. 
Professor  O.  H.  Alford,  Chatnnaii, 

(Iftryland  State  CoUegv) 
College  Park.  IM. 

Harry  B.  Witter, 

Fiederick,  Md. 

Dr.  J.  P.  Aikenhead, 

■ftston,  Md. 

C.  Henderson  Supplee, 

Plillftdelpliia 

C.  E.  Carotliers, 
Frodorl^  Bmdj, 

MlddletoVB,  Dd. 


Surplus  and  By-Products. 
B.  O.  Harry,  Chairman, 

PyteBVille,  Md. 

Frederick  Brady, 

Middletown,  Del. 

Samuel  M.  Harrington, 

Dover,  Dd. 

Morris  T.  Phillips, 

Pomeroy,  Pa. 


{Indndlag  TiimiwiIiUm  tmi  flowicm  of  ff^ffiy) 
Morris  T.  PhlUips,  Ohairmaii, 


C.  Hendmoa  fitavflee. 


Hartman  K.  Harrison, 

IM  Arryle  Ave., 

Pean  Harry  Hayward, 

Newark,  DeL 


BalttMc.  Md. 


(Including  Laws  and  Regulations) 

Dean  Harry  Hayward,  Chairman,  * 

(Dalaware  State  College) 
Mvinuk,  Del. 

Hon.  George  H.Hall,  Secretary  of  State, 

Derer.  Dai. 

Morris  T.  Phillips. 

Poneroy,  Pa. 

Hartman  K.  Harrison, 

ISOl  Argyle  Aye.,  Baltimore,  Md. 


The  Food  Value  of  Milk 
Frederick  Brady, 

Middletowa.  DeL 

C,  E.  Carothers, 

BmtrtNBRg,  Pia. 

Smuel  M.  Harrington, 

DoTer,  DeL 


The  Chairman  and  Secretary  were  made  ex-offieio  members  <if  all 
iXMiimitteee.         i^rt  diseumes  the  saijeets  wilder  the  foUowisf 

headings:  Production,  Distribution,  Surplus  Milk  Supply,  Grading, 
Food  Value  of  Milk  and  Summary  of  RecommendatiiMia. 

(7) 


PRODUCtlON  COSTS 


OOifMITTEE  IN  CHARGE:  G.  H.  Alford,  Maryland,  Chairman;  Harry  B. 
Witter,  Maryland;  J.  P.  Alkenhead,  Maryland;  Clyde  L.  King,  Pennsylvania; 
C.  Henderson  Supplee,  Pennsylvania;  C.  E.  Carothers,  Pennsylvania;  Frederick 
Brady,  Delaware;  Special  Investigator,  R.  G.  Tugwell,  University  of  Penn- 
sylvaala. 


At  the  public  hearings  held  by  the  Commissioiis  in  Philadelphia 
on  November  3  and  Noyember  20  and  in  Baltimore  on  November  15^ 
evidence  was  taken  from  dair3rmen  and  farmm  as  to  their  production 
costs.  Questionnaires,  a  copy  of  wbich  is  given  bereafter  with,  the 
results,  had  been  previously  sent  out  to  county  agents  and  others 
for  distribution.  Letters  of  request,  enclosing  copies  of  this  ques- 
tionnaire, were  sent  at  that  time  and  later  to  farmers  and  dairymen 
in  all  three  states.  As  a  result,  the  Commission  got  promptly  item- 
used  sla^tements  as  to  the  costs  of  producing  milk  from  226  farmm 
and  dairymen,  thus  showing  tiiat  a  gratifying  proportion  of  daiif 
farmers  keep  accurate  cost  records.  These  records  are  particularly 
accurate  as  to  feeds  because  members  of  cow  testing  associations 
have  for  some  time  been  keeping  the  records  of  feed  costs  on  ap- 
proved forms.  More  reportjed  on  feed  costs  than  on  any  other  single 
item.  In  the  226  reporting  are  included  101  farmers  trmk  Blair 
county,  Penn^lvania,  whose  figures  were  collected  and  refmrted  to- 
gether by  Mr.  R.  Bruce  Dunlop,  county  agent  of  that  county.  The 
methods  used  by  Mr.  Dunlop  in  collecting  these  data  are  set  forth 
in  the  letter  given  in  full  below. 


Blair  County  Farm  Bureau, 

Altoona.  Pa.,  November  2,  1919, 

Dr.  Clyde  L.  King, 

Logan  Hall,  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Dear  Sir  : 

I  am  filling  out  the  blanks  sent  me  in  regard  to  the  hearing  for  the  milk 
producers  to  be  held  on  Friday,  November  3.  The  time  is  very  short  to 
get  this  material  to  the  producers  and  depend  upon  them  filling  out  the  same 
and  returning  them.  I  would  gladly  have  done  this,  but  in  order  that  you 
may  have  tome  dvta  from  our  county,  I  shall  fill  in  the  average  figures 
t^leh  w»e  gotten  tturongh  a  snnrey  of  101  farms  in  the  county.  All  these 
farms  shipped  milk.  The  figures  were  gott^  by  a  thorQu©hly  reliable  man 


9) 


10 

mtf  I  tliSal  reffteamt  our  ooiiditl(»ia.  Only  feed  costs,  boweyer,  were  gotten 
la  tys  w«j.  Tlie  other  figures  are  taken  largely  from  ComeU  Biilletl&  Na 
M4.  Iwing  a  sunmuury  of  a  snrrey  made  of  174  Wll  farms  in  Maware  county, 
Nenr  TorlL  I  trust  tliat  tlie  figures  will  be  satisfactory.  I  mli^t  add  tliat  tlie 
figures  in  tlie  €omell  Bulletin  No.  3<>4  were  the  lowest  we  could  find  as 
given  iPim  any  n^priment  Station.  We  feel,  therefore,  that  we  m  safdy 
wllhin  the  hounds  in  giving  out  the  figures  which  we  do.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  we  have  a  feeling  that  it  costs  much  more  to  produce  milk  in  many 
cases  than  'this  ^ta  would^  indicate. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)      R.  BRUCE  DUNLW, 
Bztenslon  Representative. 


Hot  mmy  daifyman  answered  question.  The  ararage  of  all 
answers  to  each  question  follows.  These  answers,  it  must  be  re- 
m^bered,  are  for  the  year  ending  September  30,  1916.  Three  col- 
nmns  are  given.  In  the  first  column  is  the  answer  to  the  questions 
submitted  by  Mr.  Dunlop  for  the  101  fanners  of  Blair  county.  The 
Blair  county  report,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  based  on  actual 
racords  for  feed  costs  only.  In  tbe  second  column  is  the  average 
of  aM  tbe  answers  to  questions  by  all  other  farmers  or  dairym^.  In 
tbe  third  column  is  the  average  of  aU  counting  the  Blair  county 
report  as  101  farmers.  The  total  number  rei)orting  on  each  ques- 
tion in  addition  to  the  101  is  given  in  parenthesis  in  the  second  col- 
umn. These  costs,  it  must  be  remembered,  are  those  as  reported  by 
the  dairy  f armans.  The  figures  can  in  no  a&aae  be  taken  as  ^e  exact 
cost  of  imdudng  milh  in  the  Btate  of  Pemiqrlvaiiift  or  la  dther 
of  the  other  two  states  because  no  one  figure  win  ev^  represent  llie 
cost  of  producing  milk  in  any  one  state  or  in  any  section  of  a  state. 
But  that  these  figures  are  both  typical  and  significaint  there  can  be 
no  doubt. 


ProOueHon  Costa  for  Year  Ending  September  SO,  1916. 


The  101  Blair  connty 
farmers. 

! 

• 

i 

< 

in  Wlwt  U      mnmg0  nnvBl  cost  ptv  earn  to  iraAm 

nuii 

1166  <5 

m 

1128  34 

m) 

Bll 
•  TO 

14  M 

(«) 

U  19 

m 

9  04 
(1«0) 

!•« 

11 


Production  Oot$,  etc — CotUinu^. 


! 

s| 

1 

1 

1^ 

(fl)  Oott  of  tabor,   

(e)  Coot  of  deUTonr  to 
CO 

)  Special  additional  coato, 


or  dailvwy  p^t. 


(t)  Wbot  If  tko  •vocato  yearlr  lacome        cow  from 


.t 


C«)  imk.  croam.            Hctoi  milk  and  butter 
milk,  ;  


OalvM,  ••.••...•.*..........•...•.•• 

(e>  Wamn,  ,  

(d)  late  of  ofttflf  vOm  mtm  mtvw. 


(S)  Wbot  la  tiw  aterage  yeariy  onlvut  ptt  cow  In  qto., 


(4)  What  la  the  average  ooot  wif  4t.  of  milk. 


It)  What  la  the  ai^waft  ptlee  foa  reortve  per  qt.  of  nllk. 


(6)  Loss  per  qt.  of  mllk.l 


78  37  1 

(SO) 

71  08 

(180) 

so  u 

19  2& 

MM 

mi 

m 

m 

-IS 

OBI 

5  00 
(«) 

it! 

m 

8  40 

12  81 

mi 

cut) 

1170  42 

m 

1129  41 
(Ui) 

n  59 

115  56 
(«) 

9S 

13  41 

(73) 

7  97 

(17a) 

»  42 

14  29 

(H) 

nm 

fiai 

sai 

35  55 

TH 

0m 

2.92& 

f») 

OK) 

.M 

.06S 

.Ml 

(86) 

(186) 

.MOT 



.00 

{my 

.m 

.003 

.ou 

.Off 

•Thip  Is  the  srerage  of  the  answers  submitted  by  the  dairy  farmers  to  this  particnlar  ques- 
tion. The  totals  of  the  items  following  (a)  to  (g)  inclusiTe  would  be  as  follows  for  each  of 
ttiese  ctAoauM:  101  Blair  OBoatir  fuaMm,  imJI;  an  othari  TSjarftag.  Iin.ll,  averago  of  an. 

1135.36. 

tThia  Is  the  ayerage  of  the  answers  submitted  by  the  dairy  farmers  to  this  particular  ques- 
tion. The  totals  of  the  items  following  (a)  to  (d)  inclusive  would  be  as  follows  for  each  of 
these  columns:  101  Blair  County  fanners,  1105.29;  all  other  reporting,  $178.81,  the  average  of  all 
farmers  reporting,  $125.77. 

tThia  Is  the  result  obtained  by  subtracting  the  average  of  answers  to  question  5  from  the  avenisa 
of  aaawers  to  question  4.   As  to  the  actual  answers  snbndttod  by  farmers  to  this  question,  the 


Of  aaawers  to  question  4.  as  to  tne  actual  answers  suDminea  ny  farmers  to  tnls  questton.  the 
fawMra  of  Blau  County  report  a  loss  of  I.00S;  of  all  otiiers  reporting  (66  in  nnmt)er)  41  reportod  a 
1MB  m  tto  awcaM  of  |.0U  aad  m  a«  aTorage  prott  of  LMI;  coantUig  the  101  Blair  Covaitj  faroicn 

»•  miimm$  mm       mmmn  Mim9$  i»m  m  fwtt* 


other  InfortmUm  Desired. 


The  101  Blair  coimty 
farmers. 

All  others  reporting. 

it}  Wkftt  Is  tiie  net  price  for  milk  jon  or  tlie  members 
of  your  association  recelTed  at  ^^ling  or  de* 
Uieif  points  for  eacli  mmth  dnriaf  die  jreur  eatd- 
ins  iafl  30.  im 

1.043(801 
.044(30 
.040(30 
.040(30 
.042(30 
'  .042(30 
.041(301 
.039  (oOi 
.0;8(30  1 
.030(29 
.040(20 
.041(20 

(188) 

.037 

.  .038 
•  (88) 

m  9m  4am  It  eommm  wtHi  tte  mvmge  price  of  milk 
lor  tSm  fooni': 

.037 

.036 
(44) 

.087 
(») 

(44) 

thl  nUMeni.  Ml 

IS'JO^t* 

(3)  WiMt  turn  been  the  Increase,  If  any,  In  tbe  price  of 

aiiijMf 

(40) 

80% 
(80) 

88% 

m 

n% 

(180) 

80% 

(4)  What  has  been  the  per  cent  of  Increase  In  the  cost 
Of  Inbor  cowMctad  wl^  fttnn  nnd  dtiirjr  wogk. 

28.0% 
(3S) 

46.97% 
(85) 

1 

28.8% 
(3B) 

(185) 

M% 

(6)  What  was  the  increase  if  any  in  the  average  yearly 
price  of  all  grains  and  roQfflMfe  per  cow  tor 

'191S  compared  with: 

28.7% 

(a) 

II.QB% 
(•1) 

18.7% 
(81) 

J8.4% 

am 

131-3% 

(•)  Give  tbe  fttods  and  itfoportlons  used  la  your  mtloas 
•facladliig  gmins  and  lougliage.   

t 

t 

t 

fl|  Wlii^jpittgKtl^  of  the  dftlrynen  la  yonr  section 

s«% 

41% 
(W) 

Ik 

35.4% 
(102) 

•Terage  of  the  answers  submitted  not  of  the  inOBtMy  Sforages. 
•Bswers  to  this  questton  w«re  not  coinpilabi«. 


13 


Other  Inform^im  DemreA — Contimked. 


K 

*» 

s 

8 

a 

m 

«» 
S' 


(8)  Are  you  a  nember  of  •  cow  tostlng-  association: 

Yes  


No. 


(0)  Do  you  keep  a  record  of  tb«  ttUk  prodnced  eadi 

cow: 

Toil;  


No. 


100% 


100% 


(10)  What  Is  ^  STerage  annnal  output  per  head  of  jour 

berd   2,266.7  qts. 


50% 
(181) 


(lA) 


(Ml) 

65% 
(201) 


59%  i 
(161) 


(11)  What  breed  cf  cows  have  yon  in  your  herd 

One  hondred  farmers  answered   this  question. 
The   following  single 
of  breeds  were  given : 


Guernsey,  14 

Holstein.    34 

Jersey,    10 

Jersey  &  Guem- 

Bey   2 

Swiss.  HoIstelB 

A  Jersey t  ••••  1 


Bolotete  A 


Swiss, 

sey,  ......•••••••..•«.••*■•  X 

Ayrshire,   1; 

Holstein  &  Jersey,    4 

Native  cows,  preteeace 

given  to  Dnrhams,    1 

Durham,  Jersey  &  Holsteia,  1 


BoMela.  Jersey  it  Gnemsey,    8 

Bolstein  &  Gnemsey,    18 

Holstein  ft  Fresian,    2 

Holstein  St  mixed,    i 

Mixed   7 

Mr.  Donlop  replied  for  the  191  fartters  Of  Blair 
oonatj  "Uuvely  grad^." 


(12)  How  do  you  apportion  your  overhead  expenses  as 
to  bams,  aad  VOm  ovilpaMBt: 

(a)  To  cows,  

(b)  To  horses  ,.,  

(c)  To  otbor  anlaials,  


(IS)  Do  yon  arraare  to  have  joor  'cows 
Meat  tiBMs  of  iho  year: 


at  dif- 


(14)  (•) 


laa  May. 
la  Jnae, 
1* 


doea  yoBT  herd  prodaeos 


Qts. 

(1)  In  October,  .. 

(2)  In  November, 

(3)  la  DecembCT, 


How  Is  your  milk  ddlvwed  to  shippiag  or  delivery 
poiat  (whether  yov  take  it  yonrseif  or  do  it  coop- 
Oiatlvely)  and  what  Is  the  cost. 

Three-fourths  of  the   farmers   take  the  milk 
themselves.     For   cost   of  delivery 
answers  to  questioB  1,  " 


elivef7  see  tto 

'■llpllip 


3,093.9  qts. 
(H) 


79% 

(261) 


2,610  qta. 

(mi 


jygygiMltallll  ' 


Ml" 


84.4% 


5,262.9(66) 
6,015.7(67) 


h4 


o 


04»4(H 


4,015.9(66) 
4.810.4(61) 
«JM.t(ft) 


5,262.9(66) 
6,016.7jf7) 


4.016.9(«8) 
4.619.4(81) 


''llll 


Cerimn  items  iii  ike  averages  cali  fof  special  comment  In  the 
ifst  pace^  tiie  answer  to  question  eleven  indicates  that  those  raft- 
ing owned  typical  herds.  Examples  of  variations  in  the  items  of 
cost  and  of  income  per  cow  per  year  are:  The  costs  for  "bams,  lands 
and  equipment''  ranged  from  $3  per  cow  to  $53  per  cow  with  lialf 
about  |15.  Depreciatiou  cliarges  ranged  from  $3  to  |36,  with  one- 
third  about  #18.  Cost  of  feed  ranged  from  #20  to  IllG.SO,  one- 
third  bdng  around  |80.  I^abor  ranged  from  a  to  966.60,  one-half  re- 
porting around  f 25.  DeMveiy  charges  ran  from  #1.27  to  |19  one-third 
"ffliliiieing  around  910.  Prelum  and  special  costs  ran  from  91  to  910, 
the  average  being  9^  (6  reported  on  this  question).  Additional  costs 
ranged  from  9.25  to  9124.51,  one  fourth  being  around  flO. 

As  to  income,  milk  and  cream  receipts  ran  from  940  up  to  $224.49, 
one-fourth*  being  around  9X25.  Calves  ranged  from  92  up  to  970, 
one-fourth  being  around  ^W.  Manuve  ranged  from  92  up  to  9^.50, 
one-half  being  around  §1^  The  sale  of  cattle  ranged  from  j|2  to  9SS00| 
one-fourth*  being  around  9^0. 

As  to  the  average  cost  of  producing  a  quart  of  milk,  19  reported  it 
as  9.03;  33  reported  it  as  9.04;  22  reported  it  as  9.05,  and  7  as  9.06. 
The  Blair  county  farmers  reported  the  cost  as  9-04. 

There  are  many  reasons  for  the  variations  in  these  costs.  In  the 
first  i^ace^  it  is  evident  that  mme  of  the  farmm  who  did  not  keep 
accounts  had  no  definite  idea  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  producing  mUk. 
One  farmer  reports  9^.00  as  the  labor  cost  of  keeping  a  cow.  It  is 
impossible  to  take  care  of  a  cow,  feed  and  milk  her  for  J?3.00  per 
year.  Secondly,  to  ask  the  cost  of  producing  a  quart  of  milk  is 
much  like  asking  the  cost  to  rais^e  a  horse.  All  depends  upon  the 
horse.  In  the  production  of  milk  the  costs  vary  not  onlj  with  the 
conteit  of  fat  and  other  solids  and  the  care  exercised  in  production 
but  also  with  the  cost  of  labor,  the  value  of  bams,  and  the  cost 
and  character  of  other  equipment. 

The  Increasinff  Costs  of  Prodiiction 

The  cost  of  producing  milk  has  been  steadily  increasing.  Thus  the 
testimony  of  the  farmers'  estimates  as  given  in  the  above  summary  is 
that  the  cost  oif  labor  has  increased  70%  since  1910,  while  during 
the  same  period  the  cost  of  grain  and  rou^age  has  increased  36% 
and  the  price  of  cows  71%,  These  increases  have  occurred  in  the  main 
in  the  last  year  or  two. 

This  autumn  there  has  been  an  exceptional  increase  in  feed  costs 
and  to  a  less  extent  in  costs  of  labor.  The  increaseil  cost  of  grains 
is  due  in  part  to  the  unprecedented  demand  from  abroad,  to  short 
crops  at  home  and  to  the  industrial  conditions  that  have  led  to 


•In  arrlTliif  at  Uieae  estimates  the  101  Blair  Countj  Report  was  counted  as  one  fanner. 


r 


^5 


* 

1 

"In 

1 

n 

\t\ 

1 

t:oy^er  ^?7i/  A>sx  i/ar^  c??/^  com/ 


CHAKT  4 


15 


rises  in  prices  all  along  the  line.  So  far  as  these  causes  are  special, 
they  will  probably  be  remedied.  Wages  for  labor  are  less  likely  to 
go  down  as  labor  wages  are  less  susceptible  to  fluctuations. 

Chart  ^o,  1  following  shows  graphically  the  increased  costs  to  the 
farmer  from  1900  to  September  30,  1916,  as  reported  in  the  ahove 
answers  for  labor,  grain  and  cows. 

The  relative  proportion  of  the  costs  going  for  feeds,  labor,  etc., 
as  reportcfl  by  the  farmers  is  shown  graphically  in  Chart  No.  2,  while 
in  the  Chart  No.  3  is  pictured  the  relative  importance  of  the  sources 
of  income  per  cow  per  year  and  Chart  No.  4  the  relatiTe  airemge  lorn 
shown  by  the  above  answers. 

National  Factors  in  Local  Milk  Costs 

The  increasing  costs  as  stated  above  by  the  farmers  of  these  states 
are  in  no  sense  a  local  phenomenon.  The  average  monthly  wages  paid 
to  farm  labor  in  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland  and  New  Jeraqr 
increased  from  |21.81  in  1910  to  |24.85  in  1915.  The  increase  in  1016, 
due  to  abnormal  labor  conditions,  is  no  doubt  considerably  above  this 
average. 

Nor  has  this  increase  in  monej^  wages  kept  pace  with  the  increase 
in  living  costs  as  shown  by  the  following  charts.  Chart  No.  5  depicts 
the  increase  in  living  costs  from  July  of  1914  to  January  ol  1917  as 
basM  on  the  cost  of  twenty-five  food  commodities;  CSiart  No.  €  shows 
the  rise  in  wholesale  prices  for  all  commodities  from  1890  to  1915,  and 
Chart  No.  7  gives  the  trend  in  wholesale  prices  for  farm  products  for 
food  and  for  clotliing  from  1890  to  1915. 

Estimated  on  the  basis  of  these  increased  costs  as  compared  Willi 
the  increase  in  the  money  wage,  the  real  wage  of  earners  in  the 
United  States,  as  judged  by  what  their  mone^  wage  will  buy,  has 
decreased  from  1900  to  1912,  as  shown  in  Chart  No.  8. 

The  increase  in  the  price  of  milk  cows  of  all  kinds  in  Pennsjyl- 
vania,  Delaware,  Maryland  and  New  Jersey,  is  put  graphically  in 
Chart  No.  9. 

The  rising  price  of  feeds  for  cattle  during  the  present  year  can  lie 
pictured  by  showing  the  wholesale  price  of  bran  in  P^nsylvania 
from  December,  1915,  to  Kovember  IS,  m6  as  is  done  in  CaMMfljll 

But  that  this  is  not  the  only  year  when  we  have  had  similar  in- 
creases in  the  price  of  farm  products  is  shown  by  Chart  No.  11 
giving  the  trend  of  all  crop  prices  from  1908  to  1916.  The  dotted  line 
for  the  year  1916,  it  is  important  to  note,  indicates  wheoe  prices 
would  have  been  had  they  followed  tiie  average  trend  of  the  preceding 
years. 


16 


Cutis  Compared 

The  Commission  Itas  for  compamtiTe  purposes  selected  the  follow- 
lug  answers  to  the  questionnaiijeB  as  filed  with  the  OommisBioii 
showljig  production  costs  and  receipts  from  herda  These  answers 
w^  selected  because  of  special  evidence  of  careful  records.  No 
1  is  the  report  of  Washington  Cadwallader,  Bucks  county,  Pa. ;  No. 
2,  of  J.  E.  Stevens,  Sudlersville,  Md.;  No.  3,  of  D.  O.  Harry,  Pyles- 
fille,  Harford  county,  Md. ;  No.  4,  of  the  101  farmers  of  Blair  county, 
Pa.;  No.  5,  of  Francis  H.  Williamson,  Brandywine  Summit,  Dda- 
ware  emmij,  Pa. 

Production  Cosfft  and  Receipts  from  Herds, 


1 

S 

t 

4 

i 

1141  6» 

WOO 

111715 

nu  95 

«$209  87 

128  00 

•87  00 

1137  00 

105  30 

•153  54 

2.920 

$,im 

2.seo 

1.017 

2,800 
f.Otl 

2.355 
1.04 

3.036.6 
iOill 

.#11 

.034 
.003 

.04 
.001 

.Off 
.002 

.0386 
.0188 

t 

t 

1 

f 

1.  Wliat  Is  the  ajtrafe  annual  coat  per  cow  to 

produce  milk,   

2.  Wliat  Is  the  aireni*  yearly  Inooaie  per  cow 

tmm  fonr  liertf,  

i.  Wliat  la  tlw  wngmgrn  yearly  on^mt  in  qta. 

per  cow,   

f-.H?**  !■  •▼ttaio  coat  per  gt.  of  milk, 
f.  Wliat  la  tiie  aterafe  price  yon  receive  per 

— ^^i.®^  milk,  ...*•»...,..  

i.  PnHlt  or  loaa  per      of  milk  (loss).   

t. 

IL  BvMd  of  cowB  


fLaifdty 


•This  is  income  from  milk  only.   All  answers  are  for  year  ending  Sept.  30.  1916 

frTdi!      iGiJdi  ^S^Mns  *°  nwkams.     fHolateltta  and  GaerMoy.  tferaay. 

*TOl8  is  the  total  of  Mr.  Harry'a  SwM»i»~aot  a  ifwe  ghm  by  Mm. 
Jgls  la  the  total  of  e^aaea.  ' 


Professor  Fred  Rasmussen  stated  in  testimony  before  the  Commis- 
sion that  for  a  5,000  pound  cow  it  cost  1.0562  per  quart  to  produce 
milk  with  the  best  balanced  rations  during  the  month  of  October, 
1916.  The  details  on  his  estimate  are  given  on  the  next  page. 

Folowing  Is  a  comparison  of  the  cost  per  quart  of  producing  milk 
as  found  in  stated  investigations  for  given  years: 


€h9i  0/  ProSmtkm. 

Oaet  par  Qmrt  «•  Pradiea  Milk  aa  Vonnd  in  Oertalii  Sfuidafd  Xeporta  by  Experiment  Statlona. 


Saport. 


Maea.  Agr.  Elzperlment  Station.  Bull. 
145. 

Conn.    Afrl.    ■vpariawat  Stattoa. 

II.  J*.  n^parlia'CTt  Statioa,  Slat  Bapt.t 
'■■■fdfl  Bainngiaa.  laa.  10.  IMS  

Mwm  Bkmpahlre  Bxperlmeat  8ta-l 
tioa,  azteaaton  BnlMtla  2.  I 

■tata  Beard  of  A«rteiiltare.  Boa-f 
1HI9  iiaaa.,  drvnuuF  Ma.  « 


Ooat  per  Qnart 


Sept.,  1913   Average  coat   f.0i4S 

Actoal  coat  at  bam....  %Jtm 


Average  of  a  grade  herd  of 
124  eowa  far  i  yaara,  ISOf- 

11. 

Onde  iMd^  n  aalaetid 

eowa  inr  IMi. 
Poraa  afatafa  irf  7.IW  Ibw 


9iiutM  'Itatfanlty.  Briteite  III 


1II3, 
U19, 
1913, 


Oaat  at  barn,   f  .0491 

  $.0481 


Cow     producing  6,540  |.0491 

lbs.  of  milk  per  vfar. 

Cow     producing  4,644  $.061 
lbs.  per  year. 

*V^Vp  ^^9m  ^wHBId 


17 


Qosi  of  Production — Continued 

a.   Cost  as  Eeported  by  Certain  Civic  Organizations 


Bapovt. 


Tear. 


OfiHliiiart.. 


Bapt.  of  Women's  Civic  League  on 
Ooat  of  Milk  Prod,  in  Frederick 
Ot^,  Md.,  Miea  Marlean  Jaanea.  ... 

Baatoa  COMaabar  of  Goauaecee..  ...... 


1915, 


me, 


  %  .m 

For     cows     averaging  $.0832 

5,293  lbs,  per  year. 
For     tows     averaging  $.0237 

6,590  lbs.  per  year. 
For    cowd    averaging  1.0385 

8.010  Iba.  par  year. 


The  cost  of  producing  milk  during  the  winter  of  1916-17  as  given 
before  the  Commission  by  Professor  Fred  Banuussen,  Professor  of 
Dairy  Husbandry,  State  College,  Pennsylvania,  was  as  follows: 

Professor  Rasmiissen's  Esdmate  of  Present  Prodnction  Costs 

In  ascertaining  and  estimating  the  cost  of  producing  milk  for  seven 
months,  October  1,  1916,  to  May  1,  1917,  the  actual  cost  of  grain, 
labor  and  cattl%  m  prevailed  in  Montgom^  CSbester,  liieks  and 
Berks  counties  during  October,  1916,  has  been  used.  Items  for 
which  accurate  figures  could  not  be  obtained,  except  through'  a  time 
study  for  a  year,  have  been  calculated  based  upon  data  obtained  from 
Farm  Mlanagw^t  surveys  and  cost  studies. 

Considering  that  feed,  labor  and  cattle  represent  83.0%  of  the 
total  cost  of  producing  milk,  and  that  these  figures  have  been  ob- 
tained on  the  basis  of  present  minimum  prices  (October,  1916),  this 
is  a  fair  guaranty  of  the  accuracy  of  5.62  cents  a  quart  as  the  mini- 
mum price  at  whidi  milk  can  be  produced  in  Montgomery,  Chester, 
Bucks  and  Berks  counties  during  the  seven  months,  October  1,  1916, 
to  May  1,  1917,  from  a  cow  producing  5,000  pounds  of  milk  per  year. 
Since  these  calculations  were  made,  there  has  been  a  further  i-i- 
creaae  in  the  price  of  and  cost  of  feed  for  cattle. 

Figuring  the  cost  of  production  on  a  yearly  basis,  calculating  tl  3 
cost  of  pasture  and  grain  for  summer  feeding,  the  total  cost  of  kee  v 
ing  a  cow  per  year  is  |133.93.  Creditiug  the  cow  with  flS.OO,  tl  3 
value  of  the  calf  and  the  manure,  leaves  a  balance  of  |115.93. 

The  average  cost  of  production  for  ttie  year  of  6^000  pounds,  r  r 
2,325  quarts,  is  4.98  cents  per  quart.  In  tiiis  cost,  no  allowance  'n 
made  for  supervision,  profit,  or  a  number  of  minor  factors  enteri.^  t 
into  the  coat  of  producing  milk.  The  farmer  has  received  16.7  cen '  ? 
per  hour  for  his  labor,  and  has  marketed  his  crops  to  the  ^ows  at 
farm  prices. 


18 


Itemized  Cost  of  Producing  Milk^jm  Pounds  of  MUk  per  Cow^ 
PremiUmff  Prices  on  Feed,  Lahor  and  Cattle,  October,  1916 


DB: 


Buildingi,  ., 

DeUvery,  

Beddiat  

Ice,  cosl  and  wood,  . 
VeteilMiy  mrviWB,  ., 

Rull 

Cmt  ^  cow  


s 

<a 

1 

§ 

8 

moni 

a 

o 

Talue 


of 
of 


calfp 


N*t  coatt  .... 

Prodnctloii,  ... 
N et  coat,  ...... 

Coat  per  «iiarfc, 

I 


I       147  67 

$66  83 

1 

49.9 

19  25 

33  03 

24.6 

7  87 

12  63 

9.4 

4  23 

7  25 

4.4 

2  92 

5  00 

3.7 

1  76 

800 

104 

'1  tl 

f:} 

51 

87 

31 

53 

1  75 

3  00 

186  80 

1133  »3 

,  n  ins 

13  00 

f  S7S 

15  00 

I  1060 

18  00 

76  30 

115  93 

1356.6  qt. 

2325  qt. 

176  iO 

IU5  03 

5  tt 

498 

In  estimating  the  prodBctioii  for  seven  months,  it  is  assumed  tliat 
thB  production  is  uniform  throughout  the  year.  A»  this  is  not  likely 
calculations  were^lso  made  on  the  basis  of  40  per  cent,  greater  pro- 
duction during  the  five  summer  months  than  during  the  seven  winter 
months.  The  cost  in  this  case  proved  to  be  5.84  cents  per  quart  The 
reason  for  a  comparatively  high  cost  of  production  in  winter  when 
summer  milk  is  produced  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  overhead  eharges 
practically  iseniain  the  same  and  that  the  cow  must  be  maintained 
during  winter  months  when  not  producing  milk. 


Price  Received  for  Milk. 

According  to  the  answers  received  by  tlie  Commission  from  the 
dairymen the  average  price  received  per  quart  of  milk  was  |.037 
from  1900  to  1910  and  from  1910  to  KSeptember  30, 1^16,  the  price  re- 
ceived  was  |.036.  As  the  actual  profit  or  loss  to  the  farmers  as  a 
result  of  the  price,  for  the  year  ending  Sept«nber  30,  1916  the 
following  answers  were  received:  the  101  Blair  County  farmers  re 
port  a  loss  of  |.003  per  quart;  of  all  others  repoi-ting  (60  in  numlx^r) 
41  reported  a  loss  of  |.0I  and  25  a  profit  of  |.O08.  Counting  the  101 
Blair  County  farmers  as  101  (making  166  in  all)  141  reported  a  loss 


of  $.007  and  25  a  profit  of  #.008.  The  apparent  higher  price  for  the 
p^od  from  1900  to  1910  was  due  to  differences  in  including  or  ex- 
cluding freight  rates  and  other  items.  The  priced  agreed  on  between 

the  dealers  and  dairymen  in  Philadelphia  and  in  Baltimore  are  as 
follows:  ^ 

Philadelphia  Prices, 


November,  1916,   $0.06 

December.  1916,     10.06 

January,  1917,    10.051 

FelMniary,  1917,  |0.06| 

March,  1S17,    ...|0.06| 

April,  1917,  $0.05* 


The  prices  for  Philadelphia,  it  must  be  remembered  are  f.  o.  b. 
Deducted  from  this  is  ^c.  per  quart  for  receiving  station  charges  and 
around  Jc.  per  quart  for  transportation  charges. 


Baltimore  Prices — Milk  Prices  per  Gallon  Based  on  Quality  in 

Effect  Noveniber  1, 1916, 


Average  Butter  Fat   for  Month. 


3.5 


Not.,  1916  

Dec,  1916  

Jan.,  1917  

February.  1917, 
March,  1917,  ., 
April.    1917,  .. 

May,  1917  

June,  1917,  .... 

July,  1917  

Aug.  1917,  ..... 


3.6 
3.7 
S.8 


21 
21 
19 
19 
19 
19 
17 
17 
17 
17 


2ii 

211 
191 
191 
191 
191 
17i 
171 
17J 
175 


3.9 
4.0 
4.1 


22 
22 
20 
20 
20 
20 
18 
18 
18 
18 


4.2 
4.3 
4.4 


221 

m 
m 

20* 
18i 
18} 
18i 
18i 


4.5 
4.6 
4.t 


»■ 
21 
21 
21 
21 
19 
19 
19 
19 


4.1 
S.0 


«»■ 
fl» 
21' 
1!»' 

If-' 
19' 

195 


ftorpliia  Milk.   The  amoant  of  milk  you  ship  durtag  October,  November  and  December 
your  mremge  shipment.   OTer  and  above  this  "average*'  ia  called  suntlua  tot  which  a  ndweOoB 
of  not  more  than  2  cents  per  gallon  may  be  made. 

Milk  Account.  Many  cnns  are  short  of  holding  full  qMatUlM,  OB  aceount  of  d«ita  or  other 
cauaes.  We  give  full  credit  for  all  the  milk  we  receive. 

Butter  Fat,  The  average  fat  test  for  the  month  is  made  from  four  to  fiTe  different  day  test*-. 
A  propmrtiraate  amoant  oeing  drawn  from  each  can  according  to  the  sixe.  Before  sani^tes  arjt 
taken  the  milk  is  thoroughly  mixed.   (From  the  City  Dairy  Ooapany,  of  Balttmore.) 

Edward  W.  Woolman%  give  tie  following  tahle  of  prices  paid  for 

milk  from  1899  to  1916  at  "a  receiving  station  within  65  miles  ol" 
PldladeLphia."  "The  av  erage  of  three  year  periods  is  shown  as  ther" 
hare  been  some  fluctuations  up  and  down  from  3rear  to  year,  cause  I 
by  market  conditions  and  by  the  change  from  dry  to  liquid  measure 
in  1907." 


Jhrices  Paid  by  Woolman's,  1899-1916. 


Prices  per 
lit  vnmoa. 


IBM, 

ISOO. 

ism. 

1902. 

JUNMin 

1905. 
1906, 


1171 


FrtoM  per 


••••••*•••••••■•••  1 

•••..».,..•■«,.  V 

•ISlv,    ••••.».....,...,,.,'  J 

101»*   •••••  1 

 j- 

xyx^,   ....J 

l^f'   •  •  •  •  •  1 

I?"  I 

 J 


tm 


1  64 
1  <>4 


IMS  shows  an  increase  to  the  producer  of  over  |c.  per  quart  without 
any  increase  in  the  retail  price  from  1901  to  the  autumn  of  1915. 

Mr.  0*  Henderson  Supplee  gives  the  following  prices  "paid  at  milk 
stations  in  Pennsylvania/^  To  this  should  be  added  the  cost  of  milk 
station  and  freight  to  get  the  price  t  o.  b.  Philadelphia. 

Prices  per  100  Potmda  Pmd  6y  Supplee,  1900-1916. 


Ymr. 

Year. 

llB©i  

H  28 
1  33 
1  42 

II » 
Iff 

 ,  

in^'., ....»  

inir'  "'  

^  *  •  (t.*  

The  prices  f.  o.  b.  shipping  station  for  the  Baltimore  market  from 
1899  to  1916  for  three  year  averages  were: 

Mtatimore  Milk  Prices,  18991916. 


■  m 

^BW,  ,.,,,,,'1 
ijij,  ••♦»•••«••••••»».,,,,,,,,,,,, ,  \ 

"•wi*  »■••••••••••••••»••••••««•..♦,,,,_[ 

MM,  ••••••....•.....,....»,,,,,,,,,, 1 

MM,  •••••t«..... »»..•,..,«»■,,,,,,,,», J 

190*>«  '*"*'"**'''****■*■***•**•*••■  •••1 

IWj,  •-••••••...•.•....••*•,.....,...> 


P»r  0«lliin. 


1.14 


.131 


1808,    1 

«Qna'   I 

 ♦  .\ 

•••....«.«..,  ^^J 

 ] 

iaif'  **■   i 

^**»  .....J 

1914  % 

m  tSfs*  '*'"'  ,.| 

IS*   "  I 

•••  J 


Per  QaUoa. 

1.14 

.14 


The  following  table^  give  the  yearly  average  market  price  of  milk 
and  butter  in  the  New  York  market  from  1864  to  1915  InduaiFe. 


*ftf lUNW  tftkCB  fMMB  The  Milk  Reporter. 


21 

Average  Market  PHce*for  Milk  per  Qmrt,  New  York  City,  1864-1915. 


Year. 


1884. 
1865, 
1886, 

1867. 

1868. 

186», 

1870, 

1871. 

1872, 

1873. 

1874, 

1875, 

1876. 

1877, 

1878, 

1879. 

1880. 

1881, 

1882. 

1883. 

1884, 

1886. 

1888. 

1887. 


Milk. 


4.83 
8.88 


4.8 

1.76 

1.83 

4.ff 

4.8 

S.76 

3.83 

3.7 

3.58 

3.37 

3.27 

2.60 

2.33 

2.88 

2.84 

3.26 

3.26 

3.00 

2.79 

2.80 

2.81 

2.83 

8.18 


Batter. 
Gts. 


43.7 
38.4 
43.4 
31.7 
41.6 
39.6 
34 

21.8 

28.7 

83.3 

37 

33.2 

33.2 

26.8 

23.3 

21.3 

26.4 

27.5 

32.5 

26.3 

25.8 

23.0 

23.5 

23.5 

24.4 

18.7 


Year. 


Milk. 
Ota. 


Bttttw. 
Ots. 


1890,  I 

1891 . 

1892,  

18!)3, 
18u4, 

18l)5,  ........».....•....•.••....•• 

1896,  ..«•.•..•....•.•.«...••.«...• 

189 (, 
1898, 

1899 ,  .,.•....•••.••...•.••»••.•••« 

1900,  ....... 

1901 , 

1902 , 

190->,  ..».•.....  .....«•.«•••»••..•• 

1904,  ...,.................••••«... 

1905  

1906  

1907,  

1905,  

1SK)9,  .....   

1910,  

1911,  

1912. 

1913.  . ...... ... ........ ...... ..... 

1914,  .,..................••«...••• 

1816,  •• 


2.CS 

88.4 

2.88 

28.0 

2.68 

8.78 

18.7 

2.63 

88.8 

2.62 

Z1.8 

2.34 

18.4 

2.3S 

18.9 

2.38 

19.6 

2.63 

21.4 

2.74 

22.4 

2.62 

21.6 

2.88 

24.8 

2.88 

23.48 

2.16 

21.75 

2.89 

24.64 

3.01 

24.67 

3.86 

28.14 

3.29 

27.0 

8.38 

2».a 

3.88 

38.12 

3.36 

28.77 

3.68 

31.38 

3.63 

32.28 

3.6 

88.88 

2.6 

11.81 

The  Tenant  Farmer  ani  ^  Milk  Supply 

The  tenant  farmer  is  more  likely  to  go  on  producing  milk  at 
low  price  than  is  the  owner  farmer  and  his  si^^ply  has  a  great  effect 
on  the  total  producti(m. 

The  usual  tenant  farmer  arrangement  is  for  the  owua?  Mid  tenant 
to  furnish  equal  shares  of  grain  and  share  alike  in  the  sales  from 
grains.    But  the  tenant  farmer  has  all  the  hay  raised  on  the  farm 
and  gets  the  proceeds  from  all  the  milk.   To  the  owner  of  the  farm 
this  means  increasing  fertility  and  hence  increasing  yields.  There 
are  a  number  of  reasons  why  this  arrangment  is  made  but  the  result 
is  that  the  tenant  farmer  feels  whether  he  is  wrong  or  not  that  his 
cost  to  produce  milk  is  lower  than  those  of  the  man  who  owns  Ms 
own  farm.  The  tenant's  capital  is  furnished  to  him.  For  his  pasture 
—often  one-third  of  the  farm— he  pays  nothing  directly  (its  rental 
really  being  included  in  the  division  of  grains).    But  all  in  all  the 
tenant's  overhead  expense  is  little— at  least  he  sees  it  «)~and  he 
will  go  on  producing  milk  so  long  as  he  is  repaid  for  his  labor  and 
feeds.   This  class  of  farmer  produces  a  considerable  portima  of  the 
milk  used  in  the  cities  of  the  three  state  co-operating  in  this  iimsti- 
gation.    In  Delaware  for  instance  the  tenant  farmer  constitutes 
55%  of  the  total  number  of  farmers.   As  reported  to  the  Commission 
by  our  special  investigator,  Mr.  Rex  Tugwell,  about  50%  to  60%  of 
the  farmers  in  Western  Maryland  are  tena»t  farmers.  These  farms 
fange  ip  sisse  from  60  to  125  acres.  Few  are  larger  ^im  this.  Tl^ 


22 


kePds  ate  usually  above  twenhr  rn„»i„»      *  . 
head.    Dairies  on  tie«e  far,::  IrS;"*^^^^!^^ 
times  one  third  of  the  fam  and  RompZ,-f     •  ^^"^ 
laud.  Where  60  per  cent  ™  Je  f^'T^IS  oTerr?,:::  •  '  ^1" 
«f  adequate  pasture  wUch  means  that  tbTcowrmnstl^  k  * 

pn»cti«Uly  during  tte  year,  greatly  100^111  ^  ^ 

milk,  '  *>'^^*"y  increasing  the  cost  of  producing 


Maryland. 


m 

VanMi  Operated  Ifw 

Per  Cent,  of  Tottl. 

All  land  la 
itraiM; 

Innroved  land 

1     n  Utmm. 

Value  of  land 
and  building*. 

int 

1900 

1910 

1900 

INO' 

IMO 

TMiaati.  :    ::;  • 

Mmmm,  III  I..;: 

100 
68.5 
29.5 

t.1 

100 
«4.1 
;  33.C 
2.4 

100 
57.4 
S8.S 

4.1 

100 
64.3 
41.9 

4.0 

100 
66.1 
40.0 

3.8 

100 

53.7 
42.4  ) 
3.8 

100 
54.9 
34.9 
10.1 

100 
66.0 
37.8 

7.1 

rams  Operated  Ifw- 

t.  of  Total. 

fanaa. 

All  land  la 
farma. 

1  IntwoTed  laad 
f      in  fami. 

1  Valae  of  land 
(  and  bniidiim 

INI 

mo 

/ 

1900 

1910 

1 

j  1900 

1910 

1900 

,*••  ■  ,, 

100 

100 

100 

'  200 

74.9 

72.4 

69.4 

•7.6 

100 
•7.7 

JOO 

100 

100 



Maaafttn,   ,  

23.3 

lt.O 

27.1 

28.4 

65.9 

«3.7 

•8.1 

*r«Mmfv;  man  +  sliare-€i 

1.8 
lah.  . . . 

1.7 

3*5 

t.t 

2.i 

81.6 
I.S 

30.3 
•••, 

83.4 
4.6 

•Tmmmtt:  mmp  +  ahare-Caali. 

+  aon-apecuied. 


.10.1%  of  tMrmm. 


BeJaware. 


ffenBa  Oftmted  By- 


Number  of 
fafais. 


Tbtal  

Owners.  .. 

Tenants, 

Haiafwi, 


1910 


100 
57.0 
41.0 

1.1 


1900 


Per  Cent,  of  Totmh 


All  land  la 
itama. 


Improved  land 
in  farms. 


Value  of  land 
and  buildlBsa. 


1910 


1900 


1910 


1900 


100 
48.3 
60.3 

1.4 


100 
45.9  ! 

52.1 
2.0 


100 
39.7 
68.7 

1.6 


100 
45.1 
62.4 

2.6  1 


100 
38.1 
60.3 

1.6 


1910 


100 
61.1 

$.2 


ISOO 


100 
41.5 
64.6 

8.8 


23 

Butter  Fat  Should  Not  Be  Sole  Test  in  Purchase  Price 
The  Commission  feels  tiiat  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  butter  fat 
test  has  been  made  the  sole  or  primary  basis  for  tlie  purchaae  of 
whole  or  market  milk  from  the  farmer.  We  fteel  that  86lldB  oth«r 
than  fat  and  the  cleanliness  of  milk  should  both  receive  attention  in 
the  purchase  price  as  well  as  butter  fat.  The  grading  of  milk  from 
the  consumer's  point  of  view  is  emphasissed  in  the  report  on  Grading 
and  Btandardisation. 

Following  are  tables,  taken  from  the  C»su8  of  1910,  sliowtng  the 
percentage  of  tenant  farmers  for  1900  and  1910,  in  Maryland,  Ptou- 
sylvania  and  Delaware. 

Price  to  the  Farmer  and  the  Maintenance  of  Supply 

1.  The  supply  of  milk  must  he  permanent  €nd  adequate  to  all 

community  needs.  The  price,  therefore,  cannot  be  aUowed  to  go  so 
low  that  farmers  will  be  convinced  that  no  profit  is  to  be  made  from 
the  production  of  milk.  Dairy  herds  cannot  be  rehabilitated  in  a 
tew  we^s  or  in  a  season* 

2.  The  price  for  milk  cannot  permammtly  go  below  cost  of  prom^ 
duction;  and  tmdetmes  m  thM  direction  ought  to  he  forseen  amd 
forestalled.  The  price  ought  to  be  stabilized  by  agreements  between 
producer  and  dealer.  The  consumer  has  a  direct  interest  in  these 
agreements.  As  explained  later,  this  does  not  meau  that  this  price 
should  be  the  same  in  summer  and  in  winter.  The  dealer's  price  to 
the  consumer  ought  also  to  be  a  stable  one.  Temporary  losses  ought 
to  be  equalized  in  the  long  run  with  steady  profits.  To  be  sure  the 
price  cannot  be  so  high  as  to  compensate  fully  the  inefficient  Ittrmer 
just  as  the  consumer's  prices  cannot  bo  high  enough  to  keep  in  busi- 
ness the  poor  managers  among  the  dealers. 

Any  dang^  of  shortage  of  good  milk  ought  to  be  foreseen  and  tiie 
crisis  prepared  for  before  its  arrival.  , 

3.  In  determining  the  priee  that  dairffmen  ought  to  receive  or  ask 
the  following  facts  and  conditions  umm*  be  taken  into  consideraUon: 

(a)  The  possibility  of  extension  to  further  fields  of  supply.  An 
examination  of  the  sources  of  the  supply  of  milk  as  given  in  that 
part  of  this  report  dealing  with  distribution  costs  will  reveal  that 
the  supply  of  milk  for  cities  in  these  state&H-as  elsewhere— is  coming 

further  and  further  from  the  cities. 

(b)  Those  farmers  who  produce  milk  as  a  ^'side  issued'  and  es- 
pecially the  tenant  farmers  as  described  above  often  fe^  that  they 
are  producing  milk  at  a  lower  cost  than  do  owner  farmers 


Milk  will  be  produced  most  economically  on  lauds  peculiarlj 

ZSiv       .  ,  detemiBiiig  what  lands  are  es- 

peciauy  litted  for  dairying  pnrposes  are:  the  value  of  the  land  •  its 
Be^atiTO  iHttductivily;  its  usefulness  for  other  purposes;  its  special 
adaptation  to  dairying  and  the  character  of  the  labor  supply  Milk 

^L"*!  "'"^  economically  on  land  of  high  raiue  for 

tracKing  or  suburban  purposes. 

Whim  milk  is  produced  and  dairy  cows  kept  on  hijsli  priced  land 
or  on  land  tliat  can  be  used  for  money  crops,  the  e^t  is  to  bring 
milk  into  direct  competition  with  other  crops  that  mi^t  be  raised 
on  the  land  and  sold  for  money.  If  the  milk  does  not  bring  sufficient 
return  to  take  its  place  among  the  other  money  crops,  it  will  be 
dropped  from  the  production  list  of  the  farmers.  Hence  mUk  raised 
on  land  worth  #200  an  acre  ^er  things  being  equal  carries  heavier 
charges  than  milk  produced  on  land  worth  |50  an  acre.  The  960 
land  on  the  other  hand  may  be  further  fnmi  the  mrnksft  and 
Its  products  therefore  subject  to  heafier  freight  barges  or  it  may  be 
iesd  pi^uctiFe. 

The  lands  in  the  states  cooperating  in  this  investigation  that  are 

producing  milk  are  the  moun- 
iain  lands  of  southern  New  York  and  northern  Pennsylvania  and  the 
lowlands  of  Delaware,  New  Jers^,  Maryland  and  Vir^nia. 

Hwr  Proito  can  be  Increased  by  Lowering  Costs 
The  Commission  has  from  the  first  given  careful  consideratioB  as 
to  the  means  by  which  the  cost  of  produdng  milk  can  be  lowered  and 
hence  the  profits  to  the  farmers  increased  while  the  total  amount  con- 
sumed wiH  ateo  relativdy  be  increased  because  of  a  fair  price  to  the 
consumer.  Among  the  means  of  loliMg  production  costs  most  of 
wiiidi  am  now  being  practised  by  progressive  dairymen  are  the  fol- 
lowing: — 

1.  Definite  and  drastic  steps  to  eliminate  **boarders"  and  increase 
the  yield  per  cow,  per  herd  and  f>er  district. 

The  following  table  showin-  the  lower  cost  of  producing  milk  from 
g<K>d  cows  was  furnished  by  Ohio  State  University  and  is  the  result 
of  a  very  careful  study  of  conditions  surrounding  milk  production. 

Table  mimcing  Lower  Cost  of  Producing  MUk  From  Good  Cows. 


Ctow  prodiiciiif  per  year. 


Cost  per  taUra. 


'      »«»™™.        |».jc. 


25 


This  table  shows  the  v^ry  great  importance  oi  keeping  only  high 
producing  cows  in  herds.  Of  course  the  butter  fat  content  of  the 
milk  should  also  be  considered  as  well  as  tiie  quantity  of  milk  pro- 
duced. 

The  enlargement  of  output  per  cow  and  per  herd  and  per  district 
will  in  the  following  ways  tend  to  lower  costs,  (a)  By  adjusting 
the  dairy  to  the  other  factons  in  fxem  manafeniieiit  which  has  not 
always  been  carefully  done,  ^b)  By  the  increased  knowledge  of  tiie 
dairy  business  that  would  permeate  the  community  once  the  dairy 
had  a  real  place  <wi  most  farms,  (c)  By  the  increased  savings  that 
would  come  from  the  neighborhood  uses  of  bulls,  which  could  then 
be  used  to  tiie  limit  of  eflSciency  in  standardized  herdu  and  bettCT 
blood  could  be  secured  to  sire  the  growing  herds,  (d)  Cooperative 
methods  of  hauling,  testing,  etc.  (e)  Increased  use  of  cow  testers, 
(f )  The  increased  use  of  cost-accounts  which  would  come  with  the 
growth  of  the  buMness  and  which  would  serve  to  show  the  points  at 
which  losses  are  made  and  profits  earned  and  hwice  bring  corrective  or 
stimulative  measures  where  needed,  (g)  Most  eflficieut  balance  of 
mtions  through  exchange  of  results. 

It  is  to  be  said  to  the  credit  of  dairymen  that  they  have  not  at- 
tempted through  organized  effort  to  curtail  product  as  a  means  of 
boosting  price.  For  such  an  attempt  can  but  react  harmfully  on  the 
individual  and  on  the  district.  With  the  increase  of  transportation 
facilities,  no  one  single  district  (or  entire  state  even)  can  now  hope 
to  have  an  appreciable  influence  on  the  price  for  milk.  If,  by  farmers' 
agreements,  the  price  should  rise  to  an  abnormal  level  in  any  one 
region,  because  of  curtailed  supply,  CfMnpetition  from  outside  dis- 
tricts and  states  would  come  in  and  break  the  market  sending  the 
price  down  again  to  a  level  possibly  lower  than  before.  And  evfen  if 
by  organization  a  nation-wide  curtailment  was  brought  about  com- 
petition of  other  foods  would  diminish  the  consumption  and  hence 
the  dwand.  Such  a  movement  would  be  as  futile  as  an  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  grain-raisers  of  a  single  district  to  influence  the  wheat 
and  corn  markets  of  the  world.  Such  movements  fail  because  abso- 
lutely contrary  to  each  farmer's  own  financial  interests, 

2.   Production  costs  can  be  lowered  through  cooperation  among 
the  dairy  farmers  through 

(a)  Cooperative  use  of  bulls,  machinery,  etc. 

(b)  Transmission  of  ex|>eriences  fredy  in  meetings  and  other- 
wise. 


26 


Tnd  wfrriT  •  "^P^*'""  ««  to  cooperative  «eameries 
and  with  buU  assomtiOM  is  the  cooperetiw*  Grove  City  Creamerv 
and  the  coopoative  methods  adopted  by  its  patrons. 

3  Throngh  Cow  Testing  Associations.  Tliis  is  one  of  the  most 
«ta8farto,y  and  inexpensive  methods  ot  learning  one',  herd  In  a  sden- 

4.  Tbrough  cooperative  action  witii  governmeiital  authorities  in 
maintammg  the  aanitair  standards  far  milk  production  outHned  in 
this  report  in  the  section  dealing  with  the  grading  of  milk 

Undean  milk  should  no  more  be  sold  in  a  community  than  any 
other  dangerous  or  unclean  thing.  Unclean  milk  can  never  hav«  the 
confidence  of  consumers  that  dean  milk  will  have.  It  is  in  the  larirer 
Mse  ol  milk  by  the  dty  dwellers  that  the  larger  demand  for  milk  and 
hence  the  larger  sales  by  farmers  is  to  come.  Clean  milk  and  stabilitv 
and  growth  in  the  dairy  industi^r  go  hand  in  hand. 

5.  Scientific  feeding.   Grater  attention  to  the  use  of  the  feeds 
lowers  production  co«ts. 

6.  Keeping  accurate  cost  records.  In  making  up  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducang  milk  home  grown  feeds  have  sometimes  been  charged  at  market 
price  and  sometimes  at  cost  of  raising.  Feed^.  raised  ought  to  be 
thou#it  of  as  being  marketed  through  the  cow  and  ought  therefore 
to  be  charged  at  the  selling  prices  at  the  bam.  Feeds  purdiased 
should  also  be  charged  at  their  cost  at  the  bam.  If  home^grown  feeds 
are  diarged  only  at  what  they  would  cost  if  purchased,  costs  tend  to 
become  uniform  throughout  the  state  and  country  to  the  extent  that 
wholesale  prices  of  feed  are  uniform.  Tlie  Commission  especially 
i^ommends  the  system  of  cost  accounting  recommended  by  the 
National  Department  of  Agriculture. 

7.   A  more  extended  use  of  county  farm  agents. 

The  Commission  in  making  the  statements  as  to  means  of  lower- 
ing  production  costs  has  made  free  use  of  the  testimony  of  the 
following  witnesses:  Mr.  Fred  Kasraussen,  of  State  Colle-e  Penn 
i^vania;  Mr.  G.  E.  Wolcott,  As^sistant  Dairy  HusbandmaiC  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  and 
John  Rosenberger,  Dairy  Farm  Adviser,  Pennsylvania  State  De- 
partment of  Agriculture.  The  condensed  statements  of  Mr.  Ra» 
mussen  and  Mr.  Wolcott  are  hereto  appended: 


I  c 


Statement  by  Fred  Rasmussen 
How  the  farmer  can  decrease  the  cost  of' producing  milk: 

A.  Increase  production  of  milk  per  cow  by  use  of  pure  bred  sires  from  cows 

of  known  production. 

1.  M  individuals,  or  by 

2.  Cooperative  ownership,  or  by 
8.  Forming  bull  associations. 

B.  Keeping  records  of  production  of  tbe  individual  cows. 

1.  As  individuals,  or  by 

2,  Cow-testing  associations. 

C.  Proper  feeding  and  management  of  cows. 

1.  Feed  protein  and  net  energy  in  proportion  to  weight  of  cow  and. 

amount  of  milk  produced. 

2.  Use  concentrates  which  furnish  digestible  protein  ttid  net  energy 

most  economically. 

3.  Gradually  weeding  out  the  largest  producers. 

4.  Raising  calves  from  highest  producing  cows. 

6.   Good  care  and  sufficient  feeding  of  calves  and  heifers  to  assure 
maximum  development. 

6.  Raise  clover  hay  and  alfalfa  where  possible. 

7.  Provide  com  silage  for  winter  montlis,  and  whm  pasture  Is  limited, 

or  has  a  tendency  to  dry  up,  additional  silage  riionld  be  provided 
for  summer  montlis. 

8.  Improvement  of  pastures. 

♦B.  Keeping  invesitment  in  buildings  and  e;iuipment  as  low  as  possible  con- 
sistent with  sanitary  requirements  and  durability. 

E.   Good  management. 

1.  Diversified  farming,  with  some  cash  crop. 

2.  Rotation  of  crops  so  as  to  utilize  man  and  horse  labor  to  the  greatest 

advantage,^  and  to  assure  cn^s  above  the  average  produetleii. 

5.  Slae  of  businesar 

Statement  by  Mr.  G.  £.  WdleotI 

"Complying  with  your  request  of  Monday,  November  20th,  I  am 
suggesting  briefly  some  practices  of  dairy  farmi^  which  in  niy 
opinion  should  materially  increase  the  profit  from  the  dairy  herds  in 
Maryland. 

"First. — All  unprofitable  cows  should  be  ^minated  from  the  herd 
1^  an  adequate  system  of  yeariy  records  which  will  show  the  value 
of  the  product,  and  the  cost  of  the  feed.  There  are  some  hundred  and 

fifty  herds  in  Maryland  which  by  taking  advantage  of  the  records  of 
cow  testing  associations  have  increased  their  average  production,  in 


26 


ic)  HauliBg  milk,  grain,  feeds,  etc.  A  Bigumcaiit  estam]^  of 
wliat  farmers  can  do  hf  cooperation  both  as  to  cooperatiyie  creameries 
and  with  hnll  associations  is  the  cooperative  Grove  City  Creamery 
and  the  cooperative  methods  adopted  by  its  patrons. 

3  Through  Cow  Testing  Associations.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
satisfactory  and  inexpensiTe  methods  of  learning  one's  herd  in  a  scien- 
tific waj. 

4.  Through  cooperative  action  with  gOTemmental  authorities  in 
maintaining  the  sanitary  standards  for  milk  production  outlined  in 
this  report  in  the  section  dealing  with  the  grading  of  milk. 

Unclean  milk  should  no  more  be  sold  in  a  community  than  any 
other  dangerous  or  undean  thing.  Unclean  milk  can  never  have  the 
confidence  of  consumers  that  clean  milk  will  have.  It  is  in  the  larger 
use  of  milk  by  the  city  dwellers  that  the  larger  demand  for  milk  and 
hence  the  larger  sales  by  farmers  is  to  come.  Clean  milk  and  stability 
and  growth  in  the  dairy  industry  go  hand  in  hand. 

5.  Scientific  feeding!  Grater  attention  to  the  use  of  the  feeds 
lowers  production  coats. 

6.  Keeping  accurate  cost  records.  In  making  up  the  cost  of  pro- 
#iti».d%@a||ti<<i]ig  milk  home-grown  feeds  have  sometimes  been  charged  at  market 

price  and  sometimes  at  cost  of  raising.  Feeds  raised  ought  to  be 
****  thought  of  as  being  marketed  through  the  cow  and  ought  therefore 
to  be  charged  at  the  selling  prices  at  the  barn.  Feeds  purchased 
should  also  be  charged  at  their  cost  at  the  barn.  If  home  grown  feeds 
are  charged  only  at  what  they  would  coat  if  purchased,  costs  tend  to 
become  uniform  throughout  the  state  and  country  to  the  ezt^t  that 
wholesale  prices  of  feed  are  uniform.  The  Oommission  eiqp»edally 
recommends  the  system  of  cost  accounting  recommended  by  the 
National  Department  of  Agriculture. 

7.  A  more  extended  use  of  county  farm  agents. 

The  Commission  in  making  the  statements  as  to  means  of  lower- 
ing production  costs  has  made  free  use  of  the  testimony  of  the 
following  witnesses:  Mr.  Fred  Basmussen,  of  State  OoU^,  Penn- 
sylvania; Mr.  G.  E.  Wolcott,  Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman,  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  and 
John  N.  Eosenberger,  Dairy  Fai-m  Adviser,  Pennsylvania  State  De- 
partment of  Agriculture.  The  condensed  statements  of  Mr.  Bas 
mussen  and  Mr.  Wolcott  are  hereto  appended: 


27 


i 


Statement  by  Fred  Rasmussen 
How  the  fanner  can  decrease  the  cost  of'  producing  milk : 

A   Increase  production  of  milk  per  cow  by  use  of  pure  bred  sires  from  00W8 
of  known  production. 

1.  As  individuals,  or  by 

2.  Cooperatiye  ownership,  or  by 

3.  Forming  bull  associations. 

B.  Keeping  records  of  production  of  the  individual  cows. 

1.  As  in<Uyidiial8j,^or  by  , 

2.  GoW-testing  associations. 

C.  Proper  feeding  and  management  of  cows. 

1.  Feed  protein  and  net  energy  in  proportion  to  weight  ot  cow  and. 

amouat  of  milk  produced. 

2.  Use  concentrates  which  furnish  digestible  protein  and  net  energy 

most  eccaomleally. 

3.  Gradually  weeding  out  the  largest  producers. 

4.  Raising  calves  from  highest  producing  cows. 

5.  G-ood  care  and  sufficient  feeding  of  calves  and  heifers  to  assure 

maximum  development. 

6.  Raise  clover  hay  and  alfalfa  where  possible. 

7.  Provide  corn  silage  for  winter  months,  and  where  pasture  is  limited, 

or  has  a  tendency  to  dry  up,  additional  silage  should  be  provided 
for  summer  months. 

8.  Improyement  of  pastures. 

♦  D.   Keeping  inreatment  in  buildings  and  equipment  as  low  as  possible  con- 
sistent with  sanitary  requirements  and  durability. 

E.  Oood  management 

1.  Diyersified  farming,  with  some  cash  crop. 

2.  Rotation  of  crops  so  as  to  utilize  man  and  horse  labor  to  the  greatest 

advantage,  and  to  assure  crops  above  the  average  production. 

3.  Size  of  business* 

Statement  by  Mr.  G.  £.  Wolcott 

"Complying  with  your  request  of  Monday,  November  20th,  I  am 
suggesting  briefly  some  practices  of  dairy  farming,  which  in  my 
opinion  should  materially  increase  the  profit  from  the  dairy  herds  in 
Maryland. 

** 

"Firsrt.— All  unprofitable  cows  should  be  eliminated  from  the  herd 
by  an  adequate  system  of  yearly  records  which  will  show  the  value 
of  the  product,  and  the  cost  of  the  feed.  There  are  some  hundred  and 
fifty  herds  in  Maryland  which  by  taking  advantage  of  the  leeords  of 
.  cow  testing  associations  have  increased  thdr  average  production,  in 


28 

some  caaeBy  a  thousand  pounds  of  milk  per  year.  The  record»of  these 
aaoocifttions  ha¥e  been  used  as  a  bams  for  calculating  the  cost  of 
producing  milk  in  data  submitted  to  the  Commission.  Where  no 
tfystem  of  records  has  been  kept  the  returns  are  doubtful. 

'*SecfMid.~A  system  of  feeding  should  be  followed  which  allows 
each  cow  in  the  herd  the  amount  of  feed  which  is  necessary  for  her 
most  economical  production.  Within  a  certain  limit,  a  large  produc- 
tion is  also  an  ecouomical  production.  Liberal  but  careful  feeding 
should  be  the  rule. 

"Third. — ^More  protein  roughage  such  as  alfalfa,  clover  and  soy 
bean  hay  should  be  grown  on  the  farm.  Such  crops  furnish  hay  which 
is  palatable  and  the  high  protein  content  obviates  the  necessity  of 
purdiasing  kirge  amounfts  of  high  priced  concentrates.  L^^ame  hay, 
com  silagey  com  meal— all  grown  on  the  farm— lumish  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  nutrients  needed  for  the  average  production  and  re- 
duce the  amount  of  by-product  feeds,  necessary  to  complete  the  ra- 
tions, to  the  minimum. 

"Fourth,.— ^e  practice  of ,  buying  cows  from  dealers^lHIM  be 
diacouraged.  The  value  of  such  cows  as  producers  is  questionable. 
Furthermore,  disease  is  liable  to  be  introduced  when  animals  of 
unknown  ownership  are  purchased. 

The  better  way  of  supplying  animals  to  take  the  place  of  discarded 
ones  is  to  raise  the  heifer  calves  that  are  dropped  by  the  best  cows  in 
the  hard.  The  herd  bull  should  be  a  pure  bred  whose  near  ancestorsf 
have  records  averaging  400  pounds  of  butter  fat  per  3rear  or  more. 

"Fifth. — ^The  feeds  that  are  purchased  to  supplem^t  those  grown 
on  the  farm  should  be  ordered  in  July  or  August  or  when  the  price 
is  lowest.  The  present  prices  of  cottonseed  meal,  bran  and  other  by- 
product feeds  is  fully  25  per  cent,  higher  than  the  prices  quoted  last 
.summer.  Ordinarily  the  difference  in  price  will  not  be  so  gieat ;  but 
several  dollars  per  ton  can  be  saved  in  a  normal  year  by  calculating 
the  amount  needed  and  placing  the  order  early. 

"Sixth. — The  highest  grade  of  milk  should  be  the  aim  of  the  dairy- 
men. This  is  not  only  more  profitable,  but  will  also  stimulate  the 
consumption  thefeby  increasing  the  demand." 


iiiii 


20 


DISfRIBUTIOir 

(iBcladlns  Traiisportatl|||H  8«p^) 


COMMITTEE  IN  CHARGE:  Morris  T.  Phillips,  Pennsylvania,  Chairman; 
C.  Henderson  Supplee,  Pennsylvania;  Clyde  L.  King,  Pennsylvania;  Uartman 
K.  Harrison,  Maryland;  Harry  Hay  ward,  Delaware. 


The  sources  for  the  milk  supply  of  a  modern  city  are  exemplified  by 
the  following  maps  and  tables  giving  the  portion  of  milk  received  in 
Philadelphia,  Baltimore  Chester,  Wilnungton,  New  York  (My  and 
Trenton  throng  one  or  more  of  the  main  transportation  fadHtleeL 

The  map  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  shows  (A)  the 
zones  for  shipping  rates  on  milk  and  (B)  the  points  from  which 
milk  is  shipped  (1)  to  New  York  City  exclusively,  (2)  to  Philadel- 
phia exclusively,  (3)  to  both  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  (4)  to 
other  points.  The  distance  of  the  milk  supply  and  the  competitioii 
of  all  cities  for  the  same  milk  are  the  important  facts  brou|^t  out 
Indeed  it  can  well  be  said  that  New  York  City,  Trenton,  Philadd- 
phia,  Tninungton,  Baltimore  and  the  coast  cities  get  their  milk  sup- 
ply from  practically  the  same  territory. 

Map  No.  1  of  the  Reading  shows  the  territory  served  by 
the  Morning  or  Pick  Up  Train  Service  on  that  line.  The  geographical 
limits  within  which  such  service  may  be  operated  is  controlled  by 
two  conditions.  The  first  is  that  many  buyers  will  want  the  milk  to 
reach  Philadelphia  sufficiently  early  in  the  rooming  to  permit  use 
or  d^very  to  homseholders  the  mme  day.  Experi«ice  has  demon- 
strated that  the  latest  time  of  arrival  of  the  milk  trains  at  the  de- 
livery stations  here  must  be  9  A.  M.,  and  the  four  Reading  morn- 
ing trains  are  so  scheduled.  Working  back  from  this  fixed  arriving 
time,  the  range  of  territory  served  by  these  trains  is  obiiously  de- 
termined by  tlie  ability  of  the  shippers  to  get  their  milk  to  the  country 
loading  platforms  to  meet  the  trains,  and  here  again  experience 
shows  that  abiiPlllir  o'clock  in  the  morning  is  the  earliest  hour 
that  can  be  fixed  for  the  departure  of  the  trains  from  their  initial 
stationa  In  other  words  morning  trains  can  be  operated  for  the 
mutual  requirements  of  shippers  and  receivers  only  within  a  period 
of  about  four  hours  (5  A.  M.  to  9  A.  M.),  the  effect  of  wfaici  is  that 
milk  supply  for  the  city,  moving  by  morning  service,  must  be  drawn 
fmm  nearby  producing  points— a  maximum  distance,  «ay,  of  80 
miles.  The  most  remote  point  from  which  milk  is  carried  by  this 
morning  se^iee  m  77  miles  from  Philadelphia,  and  the  nearest  23 
miles,  but  most  of  the  traffic  originates  at  stations  30  to  60  miles 
distant 


'1 


m 


4 


Im  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  morning  trains  serve  the  farm- 
ers who  ship  direct  to  their  Philadelphia  customers,  the  latter  being 
the  smaller  city  dieal^ers.  This  service  places  a  large  number  of  in- 
dividual producers  in  direct  business  rdations  witii  individual  re- 
covers. One  feature  of  this  morning  service  "Whidk  is  partictolarly 
interesting  is  the  extraordinary  number  of  shippers  using  it  and  the 
varied  sizes  of  cans  or  containers  employed.  On  the  morning  of  May 
8,  1916,  there  were  767  shippers  who  sent  their  milk  to  Philadel- 
phia and '  the  total  number  of  cans  carried  was  2,603,  an  average  of 
S  4-iO  cans  per  shipper.  The  30  quart  can  predominates  in  this  serv- 
ica  This  tabulation  does  n^t  include  the  milk  firom  the  Wilmington 
and  Borthem  Branch  moving  to  Twenty-fourth  and  Chestnut  streets, 
Philadelphia.  It  would  be  consertative  to  estimate  the  daily  morn- 
ing shippers  on  that  branch  as  from  100  to  125. 

The  transportation  of  milk  in  the  morning  trains  being  limited 
to  this  comparatively  small  area,  it  becomes  necessary  to  provide 
the  so-called  ^^night"  milk  trains,  which,  as  a  matteer  of  fact,  leave 

l^r^^'^he  departure  points  in  the  afternoon,  arriving  at  Philadelphia 
shortly  before  midnight.  The  territory  having  this  night  service  is 
shown  on  Keading  Map  No.  2.  All  of  the  milk  carried  by 
the  night  trains  conies  from  "milk-shipping  stations''  or  centralizing 
plants  operated  by  commercial  organizations  (chietly  large  Philadel- 
phia dealers)  which  buy  the  milk  from  the  farmers  and  prepare  it  for 
miirket  before  shipment.  There  are  practically  no  shi^ents  of  milk 
carried  on  the  night  trains  moving  direct  from  farmers  to  their 
city  customers.  There  are  various  reasons  for  this,  apart  from  the 
cause  just  cited,  one  being  that  the  farmers  could  not  conveniently 
interrupt  their  general  work  to  team  the  milk  during  the  middle  of 
the  day  to  the  railroad  station.    Thus  one  Philadelphia  sliipper 

K^jim^  shipped,  on  the  night  service  during  the  year  ended  December  31, 
1915>  from  a  station  about  50  miles  from  that  city,  436,114  quarts  of 
milk  and  10,810  quarts  of  cream,  shipping  on  one  day  in  May  of 
1016,  2,300  quarts  of  milk  and  46  quarts  of  cream.  From  three  points 
about  40,  45  and  50  miles,  respectively,  from  Philadelphia,  two  ship- 
pers during  this  year  (ending  December  31,  1915)  shi|)pe(l  2,712,464 
quarts  of  milk  and  53,054  quarts  of  cream  to  Philadel})hia  and  on 
one  day  in  May  of  1916  sent  in  7,310  quarts  of  milk  and  1,440  quarts 
of  cream.  Two  shippers  during  the  year  ended  Becemher  31,  1915, 
sent  in,  by  niptt  service,  from  two  points  about  60  miles  from  Phila- 
delphia, 2,141,126  quarts  of  railk  and  92,068  quarts  of  cream,  and  on 
one  day  in  May  of  1916,  4,002  quarts  of  milk  and  320  quarts  of  cream. 
During  the  year  ended  December  31,  1915,  one  shipper  shipped  to 
Philadelphia,  from  a  station  about  35  miles  distant,  by  afternoon 
service,  516^200  quarts  of  milk  and  63,960  quarts  of  cream,  and 
on  am  day  1,400  quarts  of  milk  and  440  quarts  of  cream. 


/ 


REDUCTION 

RATIO 


PM-MLAi  32  "x45" 
METRIC  LARGE  AREA 
PHOTOGRAPHIC  TARGET 
(MYLAR) 


V3 


V 


■ 

■ 


'^Forter. 


fSharpsrflto 


k>nai 


■'4 


50DU8  P01N' 


IKC  SNOUK 


nOCHCSTEl 


viMlK  ccnthm. 


R.  R. 


]farioo< 


■s  S: 


Ins  Centre 
talciana 
lurich 


rUCKAWAWWA- 


of 


Attte 


MtMorn; 

Silver  Lake  Jeia^l^^  cCJLl 

Portagevillt 
Blue  Stono^ 


SHORE 


Newark  I 


Ortaanii 


PENNA 


a. 


aK»y«atelct  Je. 


Lubum 


I 


Sugar 
MMN  VA 


Union  Sjpttect 


L. 


»5i 


Prattsbw  '*^*^*"«  , 


Xockvi 


Ithaca^ 


[omeUsviUe 


:an 


■  Ceres 


[oiitour 
i'iiUa 


iiM 


Borsehc 


a. 


Speaoer 


kWeU8Till« 


IRABKI 

irtwell 


[NewMdJe. 


Valiey 
'Stoethpcrt 
Burbank 


*oiat 
>nT  AUJraAMV 


lOBW  YORK   

PENNS  Y  L  V  AnTa 

esNTWU.  /^Wastlleld 


Henry  Stred 


f  LawreaceviUe 


lemung^ 

:lmira 

taasett 


AVaverly 


BCUMI^aK 


BOUND  ABY^ 


R. 


V 


Je. 


vWrighte  couociiMoaT 
ytiiberty 

jicATiiittmMiiiffr 


Sweden  Yallaf 


I  OUT 


rCroMflorlc  Je. 


Morris  Run 


Anti 


Line  1* 


/4' 


NLaetoDla  ^] 


|rk 


m  PORK)  I 


IMPORIUM 
lUNCTION 


(teriing  Bun 


^LATelKSl&te  Run  Jo. 

^VSlateBini 


Balstoi 


»Okon»e 


mrrWyOOD 

ti'ant  .     Mill  Hum  "^iWk^inn 

Medijt 

llll^ 


ledikttt 

Roadtf 
Bridge 

>y 


Jowley 

Llba 
Riinnequa 
Canton. 

(edar 
rrover 
ynbryn 


line 


Tiwanda 


Long  Valley 


tMonroetdn 


^SatteriWi 


ore 


>pes 


ccr 
iteiiie 


r' 


O 


itkii 


ftVbetham 
^Icn  Union 

i'emey 


Irry 

J'owya_ 
laleeka 


Laporte  bu 


Riclcetta 


>gan  Valley 
[epIboniTine 


QkaogaLake 


>Janu8on  Ctt.T 


Cana.stoti|> 


CUntoB 


Ulica 


a.  R. 


Wonrichi 


lNcw  Berlin  Jc. 


Sidney' 


Deposit 


,Jeff«raoa  Jo. 

le. 


/HMMock  Je. 


lancock 


i> 


1L^ 


*\0 


ERIE 


rruukluMinock 


CBrtmidalei 


HoMefldale 


Harvey*  Lake 


(wMbhiKtou  Jc. 


lu 


^^^^ 

Port  ^. 


LA  W  A  R 
BAT 


ANNAPOLIS^ 


I  Hall 


^  J*'  >^iCi«llikte 


,  ^lieltcnhiira 
Talbert 


.f  WUK^   AHtUrilf  »   

litO  Pf#ln  S'ltt^*'  DARES 


OOVeRNOM^ 


M(v  liaukntrllle^ 

*iS^*5j»OFES  TRENT  H* 


BLACKWCLkSI 


BAVPORV 

«MTfllVieW 


RICMIMMV 


3City  Point 


Clat-eiiiT 


8 

I 


-w.->      ^/Keller    ^y  -M{/ ,  ,  ,^ 

:ir(l'8  Nest' 


5  CAPE  JU^ 

charI; 


^iNTcoMrofir 


SO  / 


L Rock  land 
.Dotur 


AOeglMiiy 


iFozlrars 
|Pftrken  Laoding 

vChuroh  HQl 
«|QWeit  Honteref 
pper  HOlTina 

I    rtiiiM  nni-nii 


Brc^kvMle^ 


Opal  Glen^ 

M^cMiiuis  tu'irnnitj 
Harve 


^ 'Major  ' 
^BaunOKtr 


Dubois^ 


[Diamond^ 


jc. 


v.. 


•9/ 


K.  A. 


[Ellwood 


•  winp 


BUTLERj^ 


^BrlnkMr 


Hooks 

Mahoning 
iTempleton 

^CowaiMtaMoe 


•Run 


:M.Jc. 


Echo 


jOstend 


/KerrmcK)r 


DiUreV 


LRochester 


>Y«teftboro*> 


•*eNCAIiPBEl-«- 


WeatWinfleld 


-I 

UekT 

"Monroe^ 
"WinlieldJc.^ 
•Harbiso^ 

Jc. 


TManorriUa 
^Ford  City 


o 

Kanu 


•«  ''a 


Wf 


lApoUoi 


Apollo 


Msmx 


Jo. 


si 
4} 


ilina 

iAvomiiore 
FEdri 

Salisbury 


DlsxmTille'^ 

Rembrant 
.Ernest  Clymer 

fReed 

Two  Lick 
jTHomer  City 

idraoeiUm 


Run 

Five  Points\^ 
'WelshdaleV 

Sterling  No.  10. 


•tfOMA  smoke 
AVON  A  cO>lt^ 

lam  City MlftES^ 

Heve.iv 


"Lovcjoy  Va^^*, 


C04I. 


iShanktowu  ^t**  */ 


|^<^'  Hastings^ 


Itt  Walter's  MilT'*"  V'^r/"'"V^^ 

Fallen  TimberV  "  QOKE'^ 


rhonias 
Mill 


OV£hS 


tUTHEB/ 


1"        H^-'Vrti/  I 


'  Jfi«f « 


UoydvfHt 


Eckenrode  j 


Curto 


Oysart^ 


3t 


St.* 


Moon&ua 


'Andi-ico 


vTunnelitoii 


OU^ 


TYROI 


^  AUTOONi 


^1 


Ha] 


ivermore 


^Ale^lSdriaSod^^ 


^y^Lennotfo 
°'>,V\nlbrop 


3^     <j. <V  c"*^ 

OlcK.  BR.  <^  f^W*'^ 

[MclCMspart  srN<*.'' 


'so''''' 


Blalrsville^!;; 

0VCN8  Hillside 


WiUwoodT 

rr..ssiug  I 


ttOMSeSHQt' 

am¥£ 


th  Ah( 


> 


Lilly, 


MO, 


aianlta 


Oaarri 

Peters  Ci 


West.  Etizaoein, 
Floreffe, 

Shlce 

Buston  Ran, 
Courtney  | 
River  View^ 
MONONQAHELA  CITYV 


Cereal j 
Rlllton/ 


T^'m^  ^/County  Mom«  Jc.  ^'s*^ 
°'  "  Mutual*®. 


« 

Manlto 

Palme 


* 

OS 

c: 
31 


|^-*»Tler 

^^iP-coTf  en. 

XriiffTllsV 


5V> 


COALMINES 


.Beaveidaie 


Salix 


Dunloi 


Iilanfairl 


Sui 
MB 


i>nora 
»^est  Colu 


•^1 

I* 
Im 


y^Ht  Vanon 


^rSs     ^ rr  '^o" 


>o  AnioliJ  City 
irt  MO-^nyotte  CMgr 


WhftiwttAl 


SpOTTOALEj 


Oreenle*>  .^c' 


GuaI  Centre^ 
Calil<li— »ajr 


Itockdalo 


9 


Emma 
MT.PLKASANT 


•r.Jc 


«i 


fluaiior 


Hillsbol 

Miller  Ui/n 
Kucking:! 

caimiBno 


rc«.i 


UHO.MWV 


1. 

O 


Evartoa 


|3« 


ASHTOIA 


llHLKII 

rosterboii: 

eynoldsilale 

HOLOCRBAUII 


AriowO'^ 


Bmitiis 


JHni^MS 


I  Mines 


Cardiff 


'*«lijKllB|| 


[untley  \a 

I 

Cataract 


^IVbethani 


»rry 
Trout  Rua. 

gan  VaD^ 

:ep,bTirnviJle 


Sonestowa- 


ftobst's  AlS'^*' 
tegtonlaAm 


^  Clarks 


aMow 


Beech  Cree. 


P./ 


«miioor 


Muiuson 


Howai 


Mount  Eag 

GumSturapV  Curti, 


Lower_Gum  Stump^ 
>l  House^A 


(Tilliyitwi 


pose 


LCLLEFOj 
ceoman 


dM.'LLVILlC 


West  MUtonJ 


lilton 


Buckhoi 


Vicksbur; 
HiflUnburg 


Kapi 


5^.  w. 


>Vi?a  „  , 


J^jfj*   ■^>#^ 


Martha^^^ 


^^Sandy  Bidge 


Rttem  Jo. 


1 

^>  MOIItMUIIMIIIJ^fM 


SCOTIA  J 


la  Walter's  lolP^'     V»ti.£H  TiwcyX  Gardner^  rowie^^^ 

TFigart  if«U  ^/^W  Eagle  „ 

iLloydYiUa  ^        ^iu^^^  -"^^ 


SEtlNSdROVE 

kKreamer  *' 


\^      '^'^  j|Sb«jnrock 


Waigli  Scales/f  a 


ferry 


3bI 
>1 


rerSpriaga 


^^^^  COAL 


o 

2 


o 

Doan 


Ccndroi 


0 

^1 


K.T\ roue 

iTYROI 


^oenbergdr 
>k»a 

^f?//  ^^1^   MT  " 

^liiH       Water  atwet_ 


IcChare 


rSybertf 


Siitarariior  KldK* 
>ntli  Altooiia  A         -Mjf        -     "»  « 


Honey  OiieeJ 

»wer  Manl 
T««tC»'Vlowl 
Buniha„ 
Menzie, 
Walnut  St 

uwrsTowl 

llainScJ 
LCWiSTOWN  Ji 


hanville 


kindle 

iintervUle 


  ^ 


lillerstown 
^Id  Forty 


wit" 


;  o       GOAL  MIHEa 

t^t.   COAL  muss 


iverdala 
'  T'loydaQ 


7oiinellslowa 


liU  Creek 


»xigfeUoNv 

Pornlnitoid  /* 
[cVeytown 


Newrport} 


icCIellaa 


Oniftoa 


f^riUQlMMISll 


Qiitaeni 


"*!i^H  III 

i.Koe 

4 

Op*  HiN  9  S^',os«ler' 

ClUTV 

Jfattlieini  Soimnn 
I'ag* 

HCIimCTT] 


Mapleto 


lyda 


'  Montour  Jc. 


•*e«a 

Juniata  BHdgc 


Com 


ItMLKII 

rOaterbiirg 


^^^^vdsIenocOc 

H>oweir8  Greet 
lark^s  Ferry 

'  BVUlo 


lai  ni  S|Nringf 


MaiyBvillfi 
Snolai 


ckriDe 

BOW 


imelstowB 
^WakottTille 


Tkindle  Springer 
Wingert  Ci  • 
Lisbura  RoadVc 

Williams  Grovel* 
Williams  Road 


iny 


Tborndaif) 


Harvey*  LftiM 


Serairtc 


11  s  I'pr 

U:t«lli« 


laleeka 


];..*B.Jc1 


^epjbamTille 


8ooesU»wB> 


4  ^em«y^^ 

Jlortln  Forlc 


[leens  Kun 


"^^^fc—  .JLjm.  Jk«B 


Ho&tfomer; 


o- 


"1 

MUtooJ 


lilton  ^ 


Buckho 


ILLVIUC 

»P^N  E8COPECK 
|5^^  Zenith 


Button /oiW*" 

lanticok* 


,Xiz)e  St.  ^ 
'Wllte*-Barre^ 


Fainriew 


Bear  Creak 


USOmBrnmiilt 


^^^^ 


iRV  ...«...ni^  *^^/e.a 


^  ^    ^-  Freeland 

*^  '     Drifton  <^<;t»ii5iii 


iear  Craek  Je. 
k  White  HaTeo 


mekabi 


o 


Kapp'^ 
nOMtHVllMIILANl 


''es  Grove 

(cn»Ii2i  


Humboldt 

80* 


5 


?/lPa 


Vj^  ^jM'Shamrock 
l/fe 


Upp|brI^high/:S^^^ 

-iJa^^Drifton  Jc. 


l> 


risbmi 


r«r8prliigt 


■f**^         alfMorrl*  Jo. 


SttvOT  ft<eolr  JimoyT,^  SUy^  Brook 

Hautocr 


a. 


Htn 


inoy  ^ 


ramaqua 


C5r.  Jc 


■iDarkwater 


Mills 


MILROY 


[oChire 


a 

Prinu'ose  a^J'^'^vatU  branch 

Forest  ville'fv  \S<^ 

Branch  DaieV> »  * 


>^^t.  Olair 


Slatfaigton) 


a. 


>TT8ViLLE 


Hon«y  OweeJ 

< 

iwer  Mani 

Menxit. 
WalnatSt 

Main  Sr.j 
LCWISTOWN  J I 


nterriUe 


Granville 


illerstowa 
»ldFiMETy 


lorningfoid 
IcVeytowtt 


Hi 


Middle  Creek 

'"«'»10|rt 

Lorberry  Jc 


...  ^^^^ 


Rausch's 


Blackwood 


Jipiteff  GardflB  Je. 

kai 


Ironton 

ersville 
Orefleklo 


Auburn' 
'a* 


Lubum 


cGleUaa 


vPine  Grove 


>rt  Clinton 
laMMd^ 


ive  Locks 
Iboemikennrtllft 

lohrsville 
sport 


WallnM*. 


Btttodiouae 

Gap 


^  n^lenook 

'Owen's  Owek 
lark's  Ferry 
ville 


SchuyDcin 
/ReAOINQ 


/ 

^Naalyma 


\  LtsbumRoad| 

1     Williams  Orovsl 

1     Williams  RoadQ 

Oakviltef^y 

St.Peter8, 


ioversfi-'rd 


ttS  AV 

Harreyvill 
Pickerin 


I  M  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 


Uurveyfl  Lake 


Co,  •'e  */   >7  Toim>klnEvUlef 


^yBrown  _ 

ClWwopdVl 


%d  Bri.lge 
East  Spotst 


/    D.&R  Caaai  jML 
/      Draw  bridge  *<XX 


Prospect 

ic. 


^^^rCranbury 
HiaNTKTOWN 


^dii^^^^43>  f  .lor  St..  ^«^>^yKt>hhIni«vllta 

^i|f<^  Trenton 


^Hoffman 

Tnicy 


Red  BaakTsT-f 

Uttle  SUt 
Braochpoit  (I^Ji./ 
Eatootown 


Howelf 


Shrewalmry 
fmlaystown 


(91 


ifASBURY  PARK 
OCEAN  QROVE 


«riMER  CR. 


Jfauns  Choice, 
oi 

Sulphur  Spi-togsi 


Smitlis  Ci 


eyaoldstlale 

si^  HOLOCRaHUII 


lYountit 


BEDFORO 


Biillalo  MilU 


PENNS  V  I.  V  A  N  I A 


Finksburg  ( 


Green  Sprii^ 


liunmey 


Pennsylvania 
Railroad 


AND  ITS  CONNECTIONS 


CORRECTED  TO  MAY  St,  t916 


/ 


/ 


■ 


Fiwcii  Cr.  J 
J 


/ers 


PielM 
Drmul 


V 


-cr 


,  OreUuid . 


'ort  Kerine<1y 

4^ 


UaniJ 


„  *v>/  Newtown Squart^  *«<\*f5^ 


>r>  Ho<  k      ChetUut  Miii ; 

Lirii,^'  Mill  •k^ 
Uijhl»'i.l1k\' 

Siiawiiio 
Cinnaini 


'fukiu(o«  It 


r, 


INKORA 


"•A      <'A  • 


^Arp 


iveniile 


WESTCHtrrci 


Newtown  Stuart  ^ 


f  o' 


1^ 


JUuiint 


in.v 


»'iiI«Tort/,j.- 
nuieiioldeiyV 
_.iorwooa 
loore 


1    ^  ■ 

elalr  —  "^Ou- 


Oil 
o6«* 


Street 


'New  £gypt 
Cookatmni 

rightatowB 
iiwfccnni 


iian 


lUaiichester 


%  Girt 

iol1« 
5  Pb  l  NT  PV 

!Bay  Heaa 

mM  . 

Gtiadvicfc 


Lfilrtirootl 


P'Cuthbcr 
i.Otouce&U'K 


Srown  9 

^ves 

>ievui 

ITeatmiui 


Ittvr 


T}i*>ut: 


%1 


New  Castle 

R 


near 

It 

Kfybuhl 


T 


»ra>t*0M ^^:fr^A  Vov-i^vA^ 

  ^lah. 

...fcni  Ki«**, 

...UlMtuWQ  ^^^^^^^ 

^  Joupers  ^^^^^MMuen 

.  JridKeport  ^^Kl^fonm  1 

oirMt 


ltfvKphniitt\P 

[    X  "Woodcitsf 

lUiWwtrliie 
forth  W.ctabury^^.j^^ 


NCOAT  CITT 


Miilinciown 


CITY    WdM  SALE II 


ljownscnd 

vBlackbird 


Biter 


Kent 


cmuMrTOM 


V^^reen  Sprine 


Mtley 


iTyoiniag 


lema 
ITreMuiboro  -^.j^ 


It  ite 


.VP' 


^valktte 
.jTtler 

jVkeiey 
Lisidefiulc 


6^ 


Side 


tec«»  Inlet 

;i:LAiinccitir 


D  B  Z  A  W  A  R  B 


r^^mRjfi**^  HARBOII  (STTN  •TNKCT) 


MmNaToi 


I 


Lo|>eft 


Tborad»1«> 


ranton 


N  F 


CftmpbcU  Hall^ 


|PitUtoA 


J'ort  Jorvi 


G<mImb^ 


A 


V 


Bmt  Cr.  Jc, 


rfS-  -I 


Bw»ri«woodj3 
Jo. 


•    *«bM  liMwd  Creek  Jcj 


KewtoD^ 


"Frfcoklin  Jo. 


Hopatconl 
E>C!liestw 


iJc.  ^ 
.Morriatown 


C. 


UC«D 

jepcribars 


,  Clinton 

Fleiuingtcn 


tianc* 


liddletowm 


'•»r  *T  n •■«b/nroV  Bin* 


MAP  No.  1 


iffr  Park 


Fkrminfdalel 


SHOWING 

TanniY  on  nilaoelpiua  &  ieaoui6  mm 

PROM  WHICH 

MORNING  (OR  PiCK-UP)  MILK  TRAIN  SERVICE 
IS  OPERATED  DAILY  TO  PHIUDELPHIA,  PA. 

I  IfMiGalM  liain  Mvvica  to  Milk  Tarminals  in  Philadelphia  at 
Sicond  ami  Bailit  SIS.,  and  Twfiflh  and  WUtow  Sts. 

IndMM  train  sarvice  to  24th  and  Clitstniit  Sis.,  PMIadal- 
pMa.Pt..  (B.ftO.  R.  Ra 


Oxford 


Of- 


1 4*  Grace 


TnckertoD  < 


MilmayU'^ 
Deraiby' 


Delawaofc  City 


BonAarHookj 


^  Green  wick^^ 


Ormoifdi^ 


Baltii 


t  Clayton 


J  Morrill  Run/ 


TowHn<l&(n 
B»rcl»T 


.  Port  Boysl 


Buttcil 


^unkhaaaoflik 


*antoB 


Ikesbanw 


^ 


Cr.i«^ 


Jc. 


MAP  No  2 

SHOWING 

lEMITOgY  ON  PHILADELPHIA  &  READING  RAILWAY 
IN  wmcH 

MILK  SHIPPING  STATIONS  EXIST 

AND  FROM  WHICH 

NIGHT  MILK  TRAIN  SERVICE  IS  OPERATED 

TO  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 


I^enn  HkTM  Jo. 

MMihOk«alr 


AO*  '" 


PortUnd) 


iltnUriTUl*  ^ 


lulrtowr 
Toi 


'Eizaus 
I  PuiBibuif 

i  OtWB  Lkb* 


1eitwo»d 


ItdMeUwl 


r 

Joanii 


0^^ 


^H»BOT«r  Je. 


/ 


31 


Following  is  a  table  showing  the  amount  of  milk  and  cream 
ihipped  into  Philadelphia  over  the  various  branches  of  the  Philadel- 
pMa  and  Reading  Railway^ 

•  Quantity  of  Milk  and  Cream  Traffic  Originating  on  Philadelphia  4k 
Reading  Railway  During  Year  Ending  December  Slst,  1915,  for 
Philadelphia,* 


From— 


Milk. 
Quarts. 


Cream.* 
Quarts. 


Main  Line,  -  

Phila.  &  Chester  Valley  B.  B    

Pickering  Valley  R.  E  

Colebrookdale  Branch,   

Perkiomen  R.  R.,  •  • 

New  York  Branch  

Phlta.  &  Newton  &  New  York  R.  R  

Bethlehem  Branch,  

North  East  PmnsylTania  B.  R.,  

Oojj^lcstown  BTftDch f  •■••■■••••••*•■•>•*•■••••••■•»■«••*•••«•"•••* 

stony  Creek  B.  B  

Wilmlnf^ton  &  Northern  R.  R.  (Note  1)  .nn  n.  yw  

Wilmington  &  Northern  R.  R.  (Note  2)  

Beyond    Reading,    Penna.,  ...^   

Total  


1.445.694 
2,450,000 
5,004,304 
3,268,616 
6,114.062 
3.647,130 
2.144.460 
3.034,310 
3,862.240 
1,589,070 
469.810 
5,364.426 
4,734,340 
12.024.196 

10.810 

53.654 
92.068 

63.960 

103.718 

366.858 

55.152.658 

691.068 

Note  (1)   Intrastate  via  Birdsboro,  Pa. 

(2)  Interstate  via  Blsmere  Junction,  Del. 

(3)  Famished  by  the  courtesy  of  the  Reading  B.  B.  Co. 

(4)  Data  as  to  cream  shipments  have  been  shown  only  when  available.    Ib  some  tftstance* 

movement  of  cream  is  not  segregated  from  the  milk. 

It  is  to  be  noted  from  this  table  that  twelve  of  the  fifty-five  million 
quarts  of  milk  and  three  hnndred  and  snxty-six  of  the  six  hundred 
and  ninety-one  thousand  quarts  of  cream  shipped  over  the  Reading 
Railroad  came  from  points  beyond  Reading,  Pa.  The  milk  carried 
by  the  night  trains  is  collected  from  as  far  distant  as  Gettysburg, 
Pa.,  (172  miles)  and  as  near  as  Kimberton,  Pa,,  (41  miles).  In  general 
the  night  trains  serve  the  territory  not  reached  by  the  morning 
trains.* 

These  facts  are  typical  of  the  morning  and  night  train  service 
furnished  by  the  Pennsylvania  Kailroad  and  other  lines. 

The  following  table  gives  the  milk  shipments  recei\^  at  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  T>arby,  Pa.,  Chester,  Pa.  and  Wilmington,  Del.,  from 
January  1, 1916  to  January  1, 1917,  inclusive,  over  the  Baltii 
Ohio  Railroad  Company: 

*Bnt  there  are  a  few  instances  south  of  Beading,  Pa.,  where  the  two  services  overlap,  there 
belitK  Iwtli  momtnf  and  night  movements  (for  example  from  the  Colebrookdale  and  Pickering 
Valley  Branches).  On  the  Wilmington  &  Northern  Branch,  (between  Birdsboro.  Pa.,  and  Wil- 
mington, Del.)  two  distinct  services  are  operated  to  Philadelphia,  moving  in  opposite  directions. 
One  Is  the  morning  train  which  travels  southward  collecting  milk  for  Philadelphia  at  rnanj 
points  in  Chester  Coanty.  and  at  some  few  stations  in  the  State  of  Delaware.  This  train  moves 
over  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  from  Wilmington,  the  milk  being  delivered  at  24th  ft 
Ohestnat  Streets  Station,  in  this  city.  Practically  all  of  the  milk  carried  by  tliis  train  is  shipped 
direct  by  farmers,  and  goes  to  dealers  in  South  Philadelphia  and  West  Philadelphia.  The  second 
or  night  train  operates  in  the  reverse  direction,  moving  northward  from  Wilmingtoa.  DeL  aa4 
handling  milk  from  several  Chester  County  "milk-shipping  stations."  These  cars  axe  taken  to 
Birdsboro  and  thence  move  to  Philadelphia  via  the  Main  Line,  delivery  belnc  made  to 
•tgnees  eitlier  st  12tb  4k  Willow  Streets  or  at  Second  A  Berks  Streets  as  dealzed. 


31 


Following  is  a  table  showing  the  amount  of  milk  and  cream 
shipped  into  Philadelphia  over  the  various  branches  of  the  Philadel- 
phia and  Reading  Railway^ 

Quantity  of  Milk  and  Cream  Traffic  Originating  on  PhMadelphia  4c 
Reading  Railioay  During  Year  Ending  December  Slst.  1915  for 
Philadelphia/  >  > 


From— 

Milk. 

Cream.* 
Quarts. 

Main  Line  

1,445,694 
2,450.000 
6,004,304 
3,268,616 
6,114.062 
8,647,130 
2,144,460 
3,034,310 
3,862.240 
1,589,070 
469,810 
S.384.4» 
4,734.310 
12.024,196 

10,810 

New  York  Branch   

Ill   -1           ""^  "  /-"""v  11,  m,  ........  ,  

riiila.  &  Newton  &  New  York  B.  B 

Bethlehem  Branch  

Aorth  Bast  Pennsylrania  B.  B 

53.654 
ie.06S 

Stony  Creek  B.  B   '.  

Wilmington  &  Northern  R.  JR.  ■(Noto  i) ••* 
Wilmington  &  Northern  R.  R.  (Note  2> 

Beyond  Beadiiig,    Penna.,                ' ' * 

ai                     •   ♦   

103.718 
966.858 

Se.152.658 

691,068 

Not©  (1)  Intrastate  via  Blrdsboro.  Pa.                                     —  ~ 

(2)   Interstate  via  Blsmere  Junction.  Del. 

ill  the  courtes.v  of  the  Reading  B.  B.  Co. 

turJov^ml^  shipments  have  been  sh«p9  »niy  when  availaWe.  I.  soine  iiista»c«« 

tiie  movement  of  cream  is  not  segregalii  Ifcom  the  milk,  «i«i«bcw« 

It  is  to  be  noted  from  this  table  that  twelve  of  the  fifty-five  million 
quarts  of  milk  and  three  hundred  and  sixty-six  of  the' six  hundred 
and  ninety-one  thousand  quarts  of  cream  shipped  over  the  Reading 
RaHroad  came  from  points  beyond  Reading,  Pa.  The  milk  carried 
by  the  night  trains  is  collected  from  as  far  distant  as  Gettv»burg, 
Pa.,  (1.2  miles)  and  as  near  as  Kimberton,  Pa,,  (41  miles).  In  ^neral 
tue  nijyht  trams  serve  the  territory  not  reached  by  the  mominir 
trains.*  '  ^ 

These  facts  are  typical  of  the  morning  and  night  train  service 
fumidied  by  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  and  otiier  lines 

The  foHowing  table  gives  the  milk  shipments  received  at  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  Darby,  Pa.,  Chester.  Pa.  and  WUmington,  Del.,  from 
January  1, 1016  to  January  1, 191T,  inclusive,  over  the  Baltiniore  and 
Uhlo  Railroad  Company: 

belSf  lSrmo™i2g'!:i*":£hT;orments  ??o"''°^'  *^<»  -r^*^-  o'^^lap,  there 

Valley  Branches).    On  the  W  InZJLT  &  Northe^^^  Colel»K,kdale  and  Mckerin^ 

mingrton,  Del.)  two  distin-  t  sorXf  are  oiSraJ^^o  PhCl^  ^"'l  Wil- 

One  is  the  morning  train  which  travels  wuthward  coliert  '  Tl''^  in  opposite  direction., 
points  in  Chester  Ootmty.  and  at  f^e  flw^?Xns  in  ti  r^VTt  "^y^.^''  PhUadelpM.  .t  ma., 

?rr' J*'!  J^**"*"*^  and  Ohio  Railroad  f^^m  Wirmin"  ton  thf  n.nir'^^'^'!;  ««»^ 
Chestamt  Streets  Station,  in  this  city.   PracticaUy  ^^ll  ^f  tt^  delivered  at  24th  & 

aiwct  by  farmers,  and  goes  to  dealers  In  Suth  kua^,-^^^  ^^is  train  is  shipped 

or  night  train  operates  in  the  reverse  dfrw.«o«   «iItJf        *^  *  Philadelphia.    The  second 

handling  milk  from  wveMl  Chrater^unTv  -^^^^  northward  from  Wilmington.  Del.7i!S 

Blrdsboro.  and  thence  m"e  to  PMla^elpJia  v""^he  ^Ya'^n  r?n"'°H"H  a^e  tokens 

•tgBe«.  eltiier  «t  12ti»  *  Willow  Streets  or  at  Second VLerks  S^^^T^^ 


Wmmher  of  Oallofit  jteceived  %  MmtM—Baltimore  and 


Months. 

Pblladelphla. 

Darby. 

Chester. 

Wilmington. 

231,404 
222,814 
253.281 
II3.M1 
228.514 
327,386 
299,822 
285,746 
245,977 
212.460 
193.412 
201.497 

4,255 
2.810 
4.156 
4.281 
6.004 
4.348 
3,546 
3.332 
3.356 
3.809 
3,480 
4,764 

2.S60 
2.145 
1,946 
l»1Ef 
l.tI6 

Lies 

2.832 

4,771 
5,709 
6,536 
5.315 

725 
670 
3.3»4 
2.946 
8.IM 
B.8lt 
2.M8 
2,044 
2.80T 
4.630 
6.051 
4,47« 

3.083.942 

48.117 

41.124 

38,072 

The  milk  i^ipiiieiits  for  one  day  in  Jnne,  1915  and  one  day  in 
Kovember,  1916  liased  on  first  15  days  of  each  month  received  over  the 
lines  of  The  Philadelphia  Rapid  Transit  Company  were  as  follows: 


Milk  Received  Over  P.  JB.  T.  Lines. 


lteceiv«d  at 

iwS* 

(Inarts. 

MwreiaMr 

]fl8 
Q«art8. 

D^lestowB— P.Jk  B.  InterUne  Milk  receivatf  hy  P.  ft  M.  at  various  points 

146.887 

189.000 
1.34,800 
203,000 
118.467 
103,133 
2.733 

138.800 

207.200 
89,200 

180,667 
79.122 
86,087 

•Doylestown  to  Edi<ton  

'lldison  to  Warrinjrton  

•Warrington  to  Nesliaminy  

*Neshaminy  to  Hallowell  

•Howell  to  Willow  Grove  

TWM  

751,132 

*  111,887 

08,009 

T80.467 

•fkmn  laA  iatlodliif  Mrat  Statimi  to  SwmiA  Statton  sot  to«lMtf«.    Aaditer*»  «ac«^  If,  13.  18. 


The  following?  table  compares  the  sources  over  which  Philadelphia 
got  its  milk  supply  for  1913  and  1916.  A  comparison  of  these  totals 
wmeaHa,  In  connection  with  the  preceding  maps,  the  ewer  increanng 
iiftance  from  which  the  dt/s  milt  supply  comes: 


Smmm  of  PMktdelphia  Milk  Suppfy  191$  md  1903 


Sovrca. 

IflS 
Total. 

% 

1903 
Total. 

% 

93,675,462 
53,938.439 
11,907,916 

•  ««••  

3,282.674 
6.234.400 
160.120 
888,880 

52.5 
30.2 
6.6 
2.8 

2.1 
1.8 
3.4 
.08 
.84 

47,984.000 

38.842.000 
7,015.000 
7,200,000 
•10.201,000 

43.2 

35.1 
6.3 
6.3 
9.0 

Anto  trucks  and  wagoiia.  

CSrfl  S1t«  LrO'lloy ,   ••••««••••«« - ••«•••*••«•  •••••a 

•m  mmm  i»  wm  Tttfe  cs«r  *m  hoi. 


The  tendency  of  dairies  to  develop  at  points  of  ever  increasing  dis- 
tance from  the  cities  they  serve  is  further  shown  an  the  table  on  page 
33|  Indicating  the  distances  fmm  wMek  Philadelphia's  Milk  Sup- 
ply in  drawn. 

Wilmington's  Milk  Sapfly 

Wilmington  receives  daily  25,500  quarts  of  milk,  25%  of  which  is 
brought  into  the  city  by  producers  in  their  own  conveyances.  The 
average  hiaul  of  the  remainder  (75%),  brought  by  rail  and  motor 
tiuck,  is  about  twenty  miles.  The  railroads  hauMng  mm  to  Wil- 
mington are  the  Baltimore  and  OMOy  the  Peniuaylvania  and  the 
Philadelphia  and  Beading. 

Baltimore's  Milk  Supply 

Baltimore  secures  practically  all  of  its  supply  from  five  counties 
in  Maryland:  Baltimore,  Carroll,  Howard  and  Frederick.  Prac- 
tically all  of  its  milk  is  transported  fifty  miles  or  less.  The  rail- 
roads furnishing  this  service  are  the  Penni^lvania  8yst^  the  Balti- 
m&m  and  Ohio,  Maryland  and  Penm^lvauia  and  Western  Maryland; 
also  auto  truck  lines  and  wagons.  The  total  quantity  of  milk  re- 
ceiTed  daily  is  (approximately)  126,000  quarts.  There  are  no  night 
pyilfr  trains. 

Tile  Cost  of  Tiaai^rMioii 

An  examination  of  the  tables  given  below  will  show  that  the  cost 
of  transporting  milk  as  exemplified  in  the  rates  t^igp  city  of  Phila- 
delphia is  a  very  material  it^  in  the  cost  of  mill  to  the  consumer 
and  in  tie  price  that  can  be  paid  to  the  farmer. 


35 


§ 


'^MAOtOO     ^OO'*  •••• 


1 


«e  o>  o  ta  CO 


<   s  « 


a 

s 


1 


o  S 


a 


.      >      K  a 


to<p  toco 


a 


o  5 


1^. 


0) 


a 


10  CO  00  CO  to 


)'«  OGOk 


CO  po    CO  «o    o»e*i<©  «2 


oc  o  o  r-o 


•82 


00 


0«  II 


I' 

a 


u 

0,13 


=5  i! 


Sis 


s  a 


^    4J  4->  «->        4->  *-l +J -fcJ 


CJ  w 


-  caches.   E'S'S'  OkCk 


 mmm    « « 


od  60  C3  C3  C3  C3 


aBDDflBaBOBia  ESZ  eo 
«j  4J  4J  4^ -fS -w  "Ttitl 


t4  yt  U  U  DB 

csescsaesos  SSS 


a  a 


aw 


9  S  9  S  S  3 
O"  C  O*  C  9  O* 


S  9  9 


e>4esi 


CI  CO  ^  ^ 


*      a  CD  OB 


afi  m 


009009000005       OJQ^^)  9} 


c  a  a  c  a  a 


CE  «  a 


oa  as 


till 


a 


i 

I 


a 

o 


9 
M 

s 

a 


• 

<•    *    •  • 

•  •    «  « 

•  •    •  # 

w      •      *            •  • 

«   •    *        «  1* 
*    m    •         •  4 

•  •  • 

•  •  * 

6tb  Zone. 

Over  500  mile 

L.  C.  L.  C. 

< 

23.4 
29.2 
39 

22.3 
26.7 

26.1 

30 

33.4 

1 

•       B      W  » 

>■*•'* 

■     •     •          •  « 

'*     •     •          ft  • 

»    •  ■ 

•    ft  • 

5tb  Zone. 

191  to  500  mih 

L.  C.  L.  C. 

< 

tin  u 

a 
o 


e 


s 


« 

o 


i 


m 


4 
o 

d 
»4 


I 
§ 

t 


4 

m 

O 

4 
d 
4 


ft  w  ft 

ft  ■  ■ 
ft         ft  • 


131193  „ai8  a«  811  ss 


m 
s 

u 


4 

d 

4 
d 
4 


w    «  • 


4 
o 

4 
d 
4 


'Sfts      ss  u 


*  I'" 


C  O  b  u 

«  «  C<  <S 

^8888 

^  Js 


Sec 
H  ■  go 
b  h  h 

fi  «  c 

0  S  9 


CC. 


ass 


Hi 


ii 
66 


Q.Q. 
«  at 

K  X 

JSJ3 
99 


S 


8 

1 


D 
9 


K 
4) 


ST- 

The  Philadelphia  Milk  Exchange  has  brought  a  case  before  11^ 
Interstate  Oommerve  Commission  and  also  before  the  Pennaiylrania 
Pnlilie  Srartiee  Commission  nrging  the  lowering  of  these  rates.  Tlie 
rates  proposed  by  the  Milk  Exchange  are  as  follows: 

Mates  Proposed  hy  Philadelphda  Milk  Exchange  at  the  Hearing  Be- 
fore the  Interstate  Commerce  Comminiim  «^  WaMmgtan,  Oct.  Wt, 
1916.  Proposed  Rates  m  cents  on  MUk  and  Cream  per  4&^^mri 
can  to  FhiMelphm  and  subvrhan  staHons  and  to  Lower  New 


Jersey  Seashore  Resorts. 


Zones  (Miles). 

Milk  &  C. 

1 

Cream.  Condensed  Milk  &  C. 

• 

L.C.L. 

C.L. 

L1.C.I4. 

1 

to 

20  

11.4 

Bates  to  be 

Rates  to  be 

iSitee  to  be 

21 

to 

13.9 

871%  of^.C.L. 

26%  over  L.O.L 

41 

to 

60  

16.1 

nUk  lutein 

2S%^oyer^JL. 

61 

to 

80.  

18.0 

81 

to 

100  

U.T 

101 

to 

a.s 

« 

121 

to 

140  

22.8 

141 

to 

24.0 

181 

to 

26.0 

* 

221 

to 

260  

26.0 

261 

to 

27.0 

341 

to 

28.0 

m 

to 

20.0 

And  so  on,  adding  one  cent  for  eacb  80  miles.  Notes:— 

1.  L.  C.  L.  rates  to  inelade  fefrigmtton. 

2.  Bates  for  united  movements  in  frelglit  ean  la  Ci«icltt  fiitos  aot  te  mmmi  k  mm  mmm*  «s 
rates  OB  milk.  passenKer  or  express  to  trains.  »  saeeM  IB  er  eeat.  of 

J.   C^rieod  minimum  milk,  cream  or  condensed  milk  to  be  4  000  auarta.    IfivMl  mvIa*^ 
elwrcMl  carload  rates  on  each  commodity  for  the  actual  number  of  ^^%Jl^     Wto^  to  be 
4.  Bates  on  46  quart  t  an  to  be  112J  per  cent,  of  the  40-qDart  can. 

bottled  milk  and  cream  ia  cases  to  be  estaUlshed  naoa  lbs  haaia  of  m  tmm  tmmk 
•f  tbe  rites  on  tbe  same  commodities  la  eaas.  iw  per  oeat. 

f.  ▲ctoal  Caot  coastnictiTel  «hort  llae  aiiieage  to  be  need  la  taeettatelac  dlstaaces. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  difference  betwe^  the  rates  in  force  and 
the  rates  proposfed  by  the  milk  dealers  is  a  very  significant  decrease 
in  cost  If  milk  rat^  to  the  farmers  are  to  be  on  the  basis  of  f.  o.  b. 
Philadelphia  or  other  metropolitan  centers,  such  as  Baltimore  or 
Wilmington,  the  question  of  freight  rates  becomes  a  ^mitioii  of  deef 
interest  and  concern  to  the  dairymen. 

As  tikis  matter  is  now  before  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
for  interstate  rates  and  the  Pennsylvania  Public  Service  Commis- 
sion for  intra -state  rates  and  has  been  thoroughly  and  c^^u^^i^ 
sented  for  both  sides  in  briefs  now  of  pnbUc  record,  ^^^HBs- 
slon  decided  it  was  not  advisable  to  maJce  a  separate  investigation 
and  tiverelov^  makes  Ho  Si»edal  recommendation  on  this  point.  It 
does,  however,  wish  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  these  rates  to 
the  dairyman,  the  dealer  and  the  consumer. 

The  Commission  also  wishes  to  point  out  the  relati<m  of  the  sone 
syvtem  of  rates  npon  points  of  milk  production.   An  ezaminatioii 


•■1,  . 

of  the  abate  table  giving  existing  rates  will  show  that  the  present 
zones  are  practically  thirty  mile  zoues  up  to  100  miles;  then  follow 
zones  of  90  and  310  miles  respectiiely  and  fin^y  a  zone  of  any 
iistnnce  ortar  500  milea 

In  i^e  rates  proposed  by  the  dealers  the  zones  aie  twenty  miles 
each  up  to  140  miles,  then  forty  miles  each  up  to  260  miles,  then 
M  miles  each  up  to  500  miles — a'  proportionate  increase  in  rates 
for  #ieh  zona 

TMs  is  anotiier  way  of  saying  that  plaeeo  at  present  500  miles 
from  Philadelphia  have  a  rate  of  but  11  cents  per  40  quart  can  more 
than  nearby  places  and  that  all  places  within  the  same  zone  are 
eqni-distant  fnxm  Philadelphia  so  far  as  costs  of  tram^rtation  are 
eoneemed.  The  zone  (Eastern  is,  we  realize,  the  only  feasible  qrstem 
for  milk  rates.  But  its  effect  on  competition  of  distant  sources  of 
supply  with  nearby  sources  of  supply  is  far  reachinj?  and  significant. 
It  also  tends  to  sfpecialize  the  milk  producing  industry  in  those  terri- 
tevles  peculiarly  suited  to  milk  production. 


The  Cost  of  Distribution 

Your  Commission  sent  out  to  all  milk  dealers  in  the  larger  cities 
of  the  three  states  represented  in  this  inquiry  questionnaires  asking 
for  detailed  statements  as  to  the  cost  elements  in  distributing  milk. 
A  copy  of  this  questionnaire  is  given  in  the  appended  footnote.^  Cer- 
tain of  these  dealers  placed  the  accounting  firm  of  Haskins  &  Bells 
or  otber  equally  competent  expert  accountant®  on  th^  books. 
fesnlts  of  five  of  tie  Philadelphia  dealers  whose  books  were  also 
tfius  gone  over  are  given  by  numbers  and  not  by  name.  Tn  each  case 
definite  assurance  has  been  fdven  that  those  cosits  are  accurate.  The 
results  as  filed  with  the  commission  are  as  follows: 

•THE  OOTKRNOIIB'  TBI-flTATB  MHiK  r01fM1f»fON.  IkftimMltioil  Dctlnd  hf  th»  OmilMlttte 
on  T)i«!tribntion  Costs  for  year  on'llng  Spptomber  90,  Iflt: 

1.  How  many  qnartu  of  milk  did  yoii  handle?  # 

2.  (a)  What  wan  yonr  Ions  I17  vnpMMmf  Wluit  WM  yoor  loM  W  bottUagT  (c)  Wliat 
WftB  your  loss  by  handllDs?  « 

t.  Worn  wmmf  quarts  of  milk  did  yon  sell  wholesaltT 

4  Bi»w  auuu  qmrts  of  milk  did  yon  sail,  j!i4«l|7 

i.  mm  WMttW  qmrts  of  milk  did  yon  fillii  li  tnriiliis? 

t.  WMt  Is  Hm  aTeratre  selling  price  of  yonr  surplns  pw  quart? 

T.  What  was  yoor  average  selling  price  per  quart? 

S^What  was  your  (per  quart)  wholesale  pricoT  BttaU  prtce?  Bnridas  price? 
frWIuit  is  your  total  distribution  cost? 

10.  Wbat  la  It  made  up  of?  (a)  Creamery  expenses  as  follows:  1.  Wages,  2.  Refrigeration, 
S.  Carting,  4.  Depreciation,  (b)  Pasteurizing  and  bottling  exppnses:  1.  "Wages,  2.  Refrigeration, 
S.  Glass  bottles  and  breakafe,  4.  Bottle  boxes,  5.  Interest  on  invostment.  (c)  Route  expense: 
tf  Balivery,  adTertising,  2.  Wages,  3.  Loss  of  bottles,  4.  Ice.  (d)  Stable  expense:  1.  Feeding 
«f  liorses,  2.  Maintenance  of  Wagons  and  harness,  3.  "WUges,  4.  ^<*t|||^BHt**  (c)  Office  expense: 
1.  Wages,   2.  Stationery.  '''^^H^Hl*  • 

11.  How  much  milk  do  you  deliver  per  wagon  per  day? 

4Mf«^^mitw?^ If^  eliminating  duplication  in 


39 


snidans  jo  oofjd  BaBJdAy 


o 

OQ 


at 

a 
9 


'8D{d 


3 


s 


lis 


CM 

to 

s 


o 


o 
c 
a 
9 


C51  £> 


to 


4) 
a 
o 

2 


s 

CO 


o 
C 

O 

a 

o 
Q 


so 

00 


to 


•aiBsaioqAi 


(D 
CD 


\ 


'SnflpusH 


000 


CM 

00 

o 

o 


00 

Oi 

eg 


9 

r-l 
IS 


o 


00 


00 
U3 


10 


8 
■00 


5 
s 


3 

to 

10 


10 
OO 


oo 


'00{;BJOdBAa 


mi  'paipovq  -sjb  jo  -ox 


t 


00 


c-j 


o 

CO 


u 

9t 
S 

c 

S3 


at 

"3 


(0 


CO 


9 
ft 


is 

■** 
A 
V 
V 

o 

ZD 


» 

u 
9 

m 


■I 


I— 


a 

u 

I 

I 

10 


CO 

CO 

i 


5  «l 


la 

n 

CO 

00 

00 
CO 

•«r 

0> 

CO 

283, 

0> 

CO 

01 


u 

o 

a 


n 


1^ 


.a 


es 


o 
S 


2 


a 
•o 


5 


u 

« 

to 


o 

9) 

"a 

0) 

O 


CI 

a 

n 

0; 

a 

u 


o 
u 

"3 
Q 

>» 

9 


«2 


e  a 
o 


si 

.5  a 

es  M 

e 

as  M 

-I 

11 


^  a 


3S 

..a 


*wipid»S|J!]aa 


i 

I 


n 
<li 

H 

I 

a 

8 

M 

to 

«• 

o 

V 

u 

4) 

Pi 


•■oil«ia«»loa 


St 
I 


i 

Ok 

i 


00 

00 

o 


8 

if 


9 

3 


«  «  B 

m  at 


13 


8 


— t. 


8 


6 


8 

8  * 


Si 


I 


OD 

o 

o 


i 


s 


o 
a 

o 
a 

& 


I 


s 


t  i  s 


5 


0« 


2 


I 


5 

Q 
S 


j 


•8 

9  A 


«■•-» 

Is 


II 


4t 


en 

a 

9) 

I 
I 

-w 
OQ 


*amiini|  pns 
snolvm  JO  »»iis«i)iiiBjf 


Si 

9 
O 


8 


8 


8 


3 


CO 

o 

co 
o 

up 

.05- 

• 

1 

3 

1 


• 

* 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

04 

m 

* 

Ila., 

i 

n 

fa 


o 

as 


£ 


s 


o 

rO 
•id 


I 


•aoi 


*  •atiioq  JO  %aori 


«=>& 

s" 


09§ 
(OO 

too 


OC4 

<i9 


I 


15, 
ft 


MO 


■i{)jaApv    pao  XraAnsfi 


00 
0) 

a 

I 

a 


n 


•a3« 

-issjq  pav  83[)}oq  bsbiq 


i 

7 

6 


-o 

8  • 


8 

ft 


♦•if* 


s 

o 


g 


8 


00 

lO  r-t 

ss 

-o 


00 

O 


w  a  * 


S 

o 


o  o 


s 
o  « 


Oft  • 


ooS 


1-1 
o 


r-l 
U3 


O 


55 


£ 


CS 


£ 


03 


£ 


03 


£ 


4) 

i  ,d 


I 


Q 
g 

s 

■ 

is 


1^1 


o 
a 

JS 
QB 


IB  1«9 


o 
O 

>» 
til 

e 
Q 

S 

03 


o 


i3  £ 


o 
u 


o 

Li 

9) 

Q 


£ 


o 
e 


43 

a 


a 

(4 

(8 

o 


03 

Q 


e 

?! 


a 

a 


IS 


I 


■ 


v|0|wiiai|p  v|  ' 


s 

a 
a 

M 

H 


o 


I 

I 


i 


\ 


43 


Your  Commission  recommends  tliat  milk  distributors  and  milk 
distributive  plants  be  hereafter  regarded  as  quasi  public  businesses 
and  subject  to  governmental  regulation  the  same  as  are  other  ouasi 
public  concerns.  The  r^sons  in  actual  fact  lor  tiiw  leoommenda- 
tion  are: 

1.  There  are  economies  necessary  and  essential  to  lai^  setle  dis- 
tribution of  milk,^conomies  that  mal^e  for  large  tfaed  bnmiiesfles 
as  compared  with  anall  sized  bmmmsmm.  Among  these  economies 
are  the  following: 

(a)  The  cost  per  quart  for  pasteuriaing  milk  induding  the 
investment  for  plant  and  operating  costs  decream  with 
increase  in  the  size  of  Ihe  idant,  and  in  the  amount  of 
milk  handled. 

(b)  There  is  also  a  decreaae  p«r  unit  in  the  cost  of  bottling  milk 
mduding  the  purchase  of  stoppers,  and  the  process  of 

bottling  i1»elf . 

(c)  There  are  economies  in  route  service  certainly  up  to  the 

point  where  the  route  is  as  heavy  as  one  vehicle  can  serve 
Herein  lies  the  greatest  single  economy  in  large  scale 
service. 

(d)  There  aie  further  economieB in  motor  track  distribntton  ftom 

fr^t  stati<Ha  to  tiie  stations  where  the  milk  ia 
traiwferped  to  indlvidnal  milk  wagons.  ' 

(e)  There  are  economic  poesiWe  in  large  scale  buying  and  ster^ 

ihsmg  of  milk  bottles. 

(f)  The  cost  per  quart  for  handling  milk  at       cmawrv  and 

receiving  stations  decrease  with  tin  quantity  of  business. 

(g)  •  There  are  possibilities  of  larger  .sales  through  effective  ad- 

vertising than  could  be  profitably  undertaken  by  the 
small  dealer.  Moreover  large  scale  diatribn«on  would 
euminate  duplicate  cmnpetitire  advertimng. 

(h)  Laboratory  work  can  be  carried  on  mora  effectivelyTBt 

1^  relative  cost  per  unit  ami  without  uselesa  dupUca- 

(i)  There  k  large  saving  in  oreriiead  charges. 

2.   The  public  is  interested  in  the  milk  distribution  business 
a  pubhc  utility  not  only  because  of  the  economies  in  ^r^J  s"rd.s 

"^"^  competition,  as  in  railway?  ai^  other 

W  Wwer  and  consumer  if  unreal. 


g.  We  further  believe  that  localiamtion  of  territory  or  asone  moiio- 
poUes  is  inevitable  save  for  special  brands  of  inilk  and-iiavet^e 
extent  that  the  public,  for  a  time,  may  prefer  the  milk  oi  mt^KKm 
M  lie  milk  of  anothier. 

4.  The  prie^e  of  milk  is  as  vital  certainly  as  the  charges  for  com- 
mon earners  or  for  electricity  or  gas  or  street  railways. 

5.  The  eanitary  saMy     n^k  w  'CWtalnly  as  vli||H^^ 
vital  than  the  sanitary  safety  of  water.  lH 

6.  The  price  for  milk  depends  largely  upon  the  economies  in 
production  and  milk  diatribntion.  Milk  is  a  food  that  is  absolutely 
requisite  for  tiabies  and  growing  diildren. 

We  do  not  hold  that  the  small  dealar  does  not  have  a  very  prcfpet 

and  effective  place  in  the  milk  distribution  bu^ness  and  as  a  Aeck 
on  the  prices  of  the  large  distributors.    We  do  believe  that  the 
taideney  i»,  and  lias  been  in  the  pait  ten  years,  toward  large  scale 
distrlbuMon.  At  the  presmt  time  tiie  fifty  or  sixty  members  of  the 
Philadelphia  Milk  Exchange  handle  some  seventy  per  cent  of  the 
milk  business  in  Philadelphia.   The  milk  business  requires  extenfidve 
capital.    Thus  one  company  has  over  three  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars invested  in  its  business  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  handles 
some  thirtj^  thousand  to  forty  thousand  c^iiarts  of  milk  per  day.  Of 
the  191,387,865  quarts  of  milk  receivHil  Philadelphia  during  the 
year  1915,  approximately  16,067,676  quarts  or  8.3  per  cent,  of  the 
total  were  handled  by  one  firm,  15,000,000  quarts  or  7.8  per  cent,  by 
another  firm,  11,996^151  quarts  or  6.2  per  cent,  by  anotlier  firm,  27,- 
6ili,6S2  quarts  or  14.4  per  emt  by  another  firm,  9,641,918  quarts 
or  5  per  cent  by  another  firm  and  9,283,488  quarts  or  1.7  per  cent, 
by  another  firm,  or  nearly  half  (4.34  per  cent)  by  these  rfx  firms. , 
We  feel  that  the  upward  limit  in  the  size  of  the  milk  distribution 
business  is  to  be  determined  only  by  economical  management  and  is 
rdative  to  the  aise  of  the  city  and  similar  matters.   We  recognize 
that  a  point  of  maximum  edze  from  the  ytot  of  view  of  economy  may 
be  reached.  But  management  is1||||l|^^    person-al  matter  and 
as  the  science  of  management  is  ff©wing,  we  must  properly  eipect 
the  continuation  of  the  centralization  of  the  mHk  business  in  the 
hands  of  large  dealers. 

For  these  msons  we  feel  that  the  public  interest  in  the  milk  dis- 
tribution business  should  at  once  be  recognized  to  the  extent  of 
FMlirding  such  businesses  as  quasi  public  concen^g, 


45 


The  Alternatives 

We  have  given  careful  consideration  to  tiie  alternatives  to  recog^ 
lag  tlie  milk  business  as  a  quasi  public  bumness.  Among  these  altw- 
natives  are  (1)  the  public  ownership  of  pasteurization  plants  in 
order  to  give  equality  of  economic  opportunity  to  the  small  dealers; 
(2)  co-operative  retail  delivery  by  dairymen;  (3)  public  ownership 
of  milk  distributing  plants  and  (4)  farmers^  stations  within  the 
city  for  co  operative  wholesale  milk  delivery. 

If  our  belief  is  correct  that  tbe  tendencies  toward  large  scale 
bncaiiess  in  malk  distribution  is  inevitable  because  of  economies  in- 
cident Itereto,  then  there  can  be  litUe  gained  by  the  public's  trying 
^  aid  the  small  dealers  through  publicly  owned  and  operated 
iipasteurization  plants.   Certainly  cooperative  retail  or  wMesale  de- 
Uvery  of  milk  by  dairymen  in  the  dtj  must  be  imceded»A^M| 
able  at  all,  by  more  thoiroughgoing  cooperatimi  amimg  ^^^'^HH^ 
production  and  transpcKrtation  and  such  olii^  immediate  problems. 
We  do  not  say  that  sudi  cooperative  deliveries  cannot  be  successful. 
We. believe  only  that  under  the  present  circumstances  they  will  not 
be  effective  if  the  quasi  public  character  of  the  milk  distributing 
business  is  recognized.   We  believe  that  the  municipal  ownmhip  of 
milk  distributing  plants  should  properly  follow  the  Irol  of  public 
regulation  if  advisable  at  all  and  not  precede  it  Farmers'  stations 
for  cooperative  wholesale  milk  delivery  we  regard  as  a  feasible 
medied  only  in  and  wh^  it  appears  after  public  regulation  and  in- 
quiry that  such  stations  can  and  will  offer  milk  to  the  consumer  at 
lower  prices  than  those  available  at  the  wholesale  and  retail  statiwis 
kept  by  the  dealers.  » 

^^^^         Milk  Distribution  a  Public  Utility 

l^^cc^ition  of  the  principle  that  the  milk  distribution  busi- 
ness is  a  public  utility  implies: 

1.  That  accounts  shall  be  kept  in  a  form  prescribed  by  the  state 
A  number  of  states  have  made  such  proviskms  already  as  to  com- 
mission merchants  as  wdl  as  to  the  usual  quasi  public  business. 

2.  ISie  rii^it  of  the  stafte  to  examine  the  books,  records  and  ac- 
coitnts  of  the  milk  dealers  must  be  recognized  the  same  as  it  is  with 
common  carriers  and  municipal  utilitiea 

3.  The  right  of  complainants  of  ac9H  material  facts. 

4.  The  right  and  duty  of  the  state  to  prescribe  the  form  of  annual 
reports. 


•  46 

5.  The  necessity  of  requiring  that  all  dealers  be  licensed  in  order 
to  control  the  purity  and  food  value  of  the  milk  supply.  (This  is 
already  done.) 

6.  The  licensing  of  testers  in  the  various  receiving  stations  by 
the  state  especially  now  that  the  hsLsm  of  pay  to  the  dairyman  for  his 
milk  U  a  butler  fat  test  (See  sectiou  on  Grading  of  Milk) . 

7.  The  same  price  to  all  under  substantially  similar  circum- 
stances and  conditions. 

We  recommend  that  the  supervision  of  milk  dealers  including 
authority  over  accounts  and  annual  reports  should  be  given  to  some 
stwte  board. 

In  making  tiiese  recommendations  Oommission  wic&es  to  com- 
mend tie  attitude  of  the  mUk  dealers  at  present  and  throoi^oat  tilie 
past  They  have  not  only  been  willing  to  cooperate  wit3i  existing 
governmental  agencies  but  lia\e  furthered  the  growth  and  efficiency 
of  such  agencies.  The  dealers  on  this  commission,  as  have  other 
dealers^  join  beartily  in  this  further  increase  of  public  service  in  the 
milk^  business* 

Frice  to  Conmnitr. 

A  steady  price  to  the  consumer  throughout  tiie  year  is  of  yalue 
alike  to  the  dealer,  to  the  consumer  and  to  tlie  farmer.  To  the  dealer 
i|  makes  possible  a  uniform  method  in  collection  and  payment  of 
Mis  and  allows  careful  purchasing  throughout  the  year^  This  does 
mot  mea%  howmetj  that  the  price  that  should  be  pisid  to  the  famer 
must  be  uniform  in  summer  and  m  wint^  because  tbe  winter  price 
must  necessarily  be  Mf^&t  than  ^^<m|M  price  in  md&t  to  pay 
for  the  additional  cost  and  troublMlip  milk  in  the  winter 

monthta,  unless  some  better  method  be  devised  for  attaining  the  same 

Publicity  of  Eecilpts  of  Milk. 

The  commission  recommends  that  the  carriers  make  ayailable 
weekly  to  the  press  the  total  amount  of  milk  received  ovet  their  lines 
during  the  preceding  week.   The  receipts  of  milk  on  the  New  York 

market  have  been  so  available  for  a  number  of  years.^ 

 tiili  

*TbU  recommendation  was  transmtttad  to  tbe  carriers  by  tbe  chairman.    The  csnrien  re- 
tliat  they  woold  make  reporti  of  the  monthly  reeeipta,  itemized  aa  to  cream,  mUk  and 
 Id  milk,  aTailaU*  to  the  Agricultural  Serrioe  Bnreaa  of  The  Com  Ezohanfo  National 


47 


THE  SURPLUS  MILK  SUPPLY.  ' 


R.«?^^i3'^^^  IN  CHARGE:  D.  G.  Harry,  Marylwid,  C*ain.Mi»;  Frederick 


By  surplus  milk  is  meant  tlie  excess  of  milk  wbicb  is  produced  at 
certain  seasons  of  the  year  above  the  normal  consnm^ttai.  The  prob- 
lem of  the  milk  surplus  involves  finding  a  market  for  this  extra, 
Measonal,  milk  enrplus. 

The  exact  time  of  the  occurrence  of  the  milk  surplus  of  course 
varies  from  state  to  state,  as  well  as  within  narrower  boundaries, 
but  in  general  it  may  be  said  to  come  in  April,  May  and  Jun^  while 
there  may  be  a  corresponding  decrease  below  tiie  avm^e  in  certain 
other  months,  particularly  in  Octoba-,  iNovmber  and  D^eeember. 

If  the  farmer  gives  the  dealer  for  tiiree  months  of  the  year  say 
ime^fifth  more  milk  tiian  the  distributor  may  be  able  to  sell  through 
Ids  Mdinary  channels,  the  dealer  must  either  have  on  hand  some 
otiier  means  of  getting  rid  of  this  extra  milk  at  the  usual  market 
price,  or  he  must  pay  a  smaller  amount  to  the  producer.  Simila^, 
if  the  producer  has  a  contract  with  ^  distributor  to  toil^tttKm 
with  a  certain  amount  of  milk  per  day,  and  ha%  liiefiloprattimes 
a  surplus  on  band  wl^di  hie  Is  nimble  to  get  rid  of,  except  through 
extraordinary  channels  at  very  low  rates,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
he  must  get  more  for  the  milk  he  does  sell. 

In  general  there  are  two  ways  in  which  the  milk  surplus  may  be 
utilized:  It  may  be  converted  into  such  form  as  will  allow  it  to  be 
stored  for  at  least  several  mon^s;  or  theM  msv  bo  ^^p^^rngm^^ 
new  demand  for  milk  at  the  particular  sesM  at  wiiidi  the  surplus 
comes.  If  the  first  means  be  selected,  and  the  form  changed,  there 
are  tiii^  products  into  which  it  is  .most  usually  converted:  butter, 
dieese  and  condensed  milk.  In  any  of  these  firms,  spoilage  will  not 
set  in  for  a  long  time,  while  condensed  milk  may  be  kept  indefinitely. 
And  finally  cream  may  be  taken  from  the  milk  and  stei^  for  as  long 
as  six  months. 

Butter  and  cheese  have  usually  be^  made  in  localities  where 
transportation  to  market  has  hem  poor,  and  hence  where  milk  would 
spoil  ir  It  W^  shipped  for  use  in  its  fresh  state.  This  is  as  true 
of  tile  old  houseliold  industry  that  turned  out  butter  and  cheese,  as 
of  the  newer  factory  industry  that  has  sprung  up  in  the  last  half- 
pentury.   Also,  countries  with  a  surplus  of  milk  for  tiie  needs  of 


4 

i 


4o 

Hieir  popoilation  have  with  tlie  tight  kind  of  organization  turned  to(|||^^ 
the  export  of  butter  and  cheese.  Holland  and  Denmaric  are  striking  lIp 
eacamples  of  such  countries. 

A  newer  method  of  changing  the  form  of  milk,  so  that  it  will  not 
flfcxily  is  to  make  it  into  condensed  or  evaporated  milk.  CJondensed 
milk,  it  is  tnic,  has  hem  found  to  Ime  a  limited  market.  There  is 
a  la^  portion  of  the  population  ^at  does  not  find  in  it  an  entirely 
adequate  substitnte  for  fresh  milk.  Bnt  notwithstanding  these  limi- 
tations, there  is  a  large  and  permanent  market  for  the  product.  Not 
only  is  the  domestic  market  available,  but  there  is  also  an  exceedingly  • 
lar^  permanent  export  market  to  frontier  regions,  or  to  regions 
wliimi  biecaiise  of  dimatie  c<mdl,tion8,  milk  cannot  be  produced, 
llliese  lattar  ^^tdi^^  of  eonrse,  not  only  available  for  condoised 
milk,  but  also  for  tutter  and  cheese.   One  of  tiia  prmdiial  caDses 
of  the  great  growth  in  the  production  of  conde&aed^  milk  daring  the 
last  few  years  is  a  huge  increase  in  export  trade,  bo<ii  with  Buk^ 
and  with  remote  districts,  such  as  Alaska.  The  total  value  of  butter, 
cheeae  and  condensed  milk  products  in  the  United  States  in  1914 
was  PT0^18,729,  which  was  an  increase  of  over  35  per  c^t.  from 
thfi  figures  irf  1909  (275^,090).  There  wiU  be  a  stjeady  and  pro- 
bably increasing  export  maricet  for  milk  products,  so  if  the  hwiie 
market  will  not  absorb  th^,  the  foreign  market  will.   Tfcat  the 
foreign  market  will  continue  to  be  a  large  one  for  some  time  Is  evi- 
denced by  the  fact  that  Germany  and  other  of  the  belligerent  states 
have  adopted  the  plan  of  killing  oflE  cattle  over  two  years  of  age  with 
tiie  d^fii^te  folii^  of  vedodng  the  number  to  those  that  can  be  sus- 
tained by  roui^teige  human  beings  can  not  «ft  or  by  pasturage  cm 
lands  that  will  not  profitably  grow  human  foods. 

There  has  been  a  steady  increase  in  the  production  of  the  three 
products,  butter,  oheesie  and  condensed  milk,  in  the  United  States 
dnee  they  were  first  made  in  factories,  as  is  shown  by  Chart  No.  12, 
and  this  trade  has  increased  far  more  rapidly  in  the  last  ten  years 
»ii»n  previously.  Wc  may  therefore  say  that  we  have  an  expanding 
market  for  th^ese  milk  products.  ''li||H| 

The  increase  in  the  production  of  condMised  mitt  bee  f^^Q^jppMm 
rapid  than  has  been  the  case  with  either  buttw  or  cheese,  as  fe  i^wn 
by  Chart  No.  13,  and  it  is  altogether  probable  that,  if  other  factors 
make  it  practicable,  condensed  milk  would  be  the  largest  outlet  for 

our  surplus  milk  supply. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  ice  cream  would  furnish  an  outlet  for 
the  surplus  milk.  But  ice  cream  in  most  urban  cent«ps  is  now  west 
profitably  made  from  cream  with  the  body  from  mUk  powdM  and 

not  from  whole  milk.   Hence  there  is  a  decided  limit  to  the  use  of 
surplus  milk  for  ice  cream,  unless  the  whole  milk  be  purchasable  at  ^ 
very  low  prices.  However,  tfee  dates  of  the  surplus  maximum  and 


rMpmd  fey  B.  a.  LMM*at|k.  IMfwHty  tf  rMMylfutt. 
J  .  GQABT  12. 


I  §90.  181^ 


f 


MMiHWl  llBf  M.  M. 
CBAIS'  IS. 


IiMMbiirgli.  UalTtnltr  «C  BauMgrltaait, 


Pnpwrad  bar  B.  H* 
CSHART  U. 

These  charts  and  the  other  charts  in  this  section,  hased  on  figures  from  the  United 
States  Census,  were  prepared  by  &.  H.  X4Ui8burgb«  Instructor  in  Industry  in  tfao 
XJniyergity  of*  Pennsylvania. 


FnmnA  hj  R.  H.  Luwbiufli.  UaiTenity  of  Pewisylvaiila 
CHART  15. 


n»pu«d  bar  B,  H.  laaitaii^  Whmmw  tC  VmiMifliMte. 


,1  f 

49 


ike  ice  cream  consumption  maximum  do  not  exactly  corresjwnd, 
with  the  result  that  the  making  of  ice  cream  is  not  an  entire  solu- 
tion of  the  surplus  problem.  Moreover  there  is  an  increasing  use 
of  ice  aeam  as  a  year-round  article  of  diet. 

There  are  the  same  difficulties  in  the  vm  of  surplus  milk  in  tiie 
maMng  of  confectionery.  For  this  industry,  too,  is  a  year-round  one^ 
and  its  maxifflum  use  of  milk  comes  in  the  season  of  greatest  scarcity 
of  milk. 

Butter,  cheese,  and  condensed  milk  factories,  are  usually  located 
in  the  remoter  dairying  districts,  where  transportation  facilities 
make  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  take  fresh  milk  to  market  ii^MllHl^ 
condition.  For  instance,  there  is  little  cheese  made  in  ^^*^||. 
lamette  Valley  in  Oregon,  although  it  is  the  principal  dairy  region 
of  that  state,  whereas  on  the  Coast,  where  transportation  facilities 
are  very  poor,  practicallj  all  the  cheese  factories  of  Oregon  are 
found.  In  other  words,  the  AYillamette  Valley  has  an  outlet  for 
.  fresh  milk  to  Portland,  the  coast  district  does  not. 

The  three  allied  industries,  butter  making,  cheese  making,  and  the 
manufacture  of  condensied  ndlk,  instead  of  taking  cai«  of  the  swt- 
plus  milk  of  districts  tributary  to  cities,  rather  nse  the  total  sni^ly 
of  Ihe  remoter  dairy  regions,  operating  as  near  365  days  a  year  as 
they  can.  Hence,  the  surplus  of  the  producer  of  market  milk  is  not 
taken  care  of  by  any  of  these  industries,  and  it  is  the  surplus  of  such 
men  which  creates  the  surplus  problem. 

Milk  condensories  are  not  most  profitable  near  large  milk  products 
because,  during  the  ordinary  times  of  the  year,  the  OMUtet  price  of 
w9i!oIe  milk  would  of  course  be  far  higher  than  the  price  that  the 
operators  of  a  condensery  in  a  remoter  district  would  have  to  pay, 
because  of  many  factors,  including  both  demand  for  fresh  milk  and 
cost  of  production.  The  products  of  tlie  condenseries  compete  the 
world  over,  and  there  is  thus  developed  a  tendency  to  move  them  as 
near  as  possible  to  the  frontiers  of  the  dairy  industry. 

An  interesting  proof  of  the  facts  just  cited  is  to  be  found  by  i^i^ 
ence  to  Charts  Nos.  14,  15  and  16  showing  tiie  production  of  butter, 
cheese  and  condensed  milk  in  each  of  the  leading  states  from  1899 
to  date. 

The  most  noticeable  feature  of  these  charts  is  the  rise  of 
Wisconsin  to  leadership  in  these  branches  of  the  dairy  industry.  Wis- 
consin is  a  state  which  we  may  term  as  on  the  frontier  of  the  industry, 
despite  its  leadership,  and  if  we  studied  the  sta^  itself  iro  would  find 
similar  tendencies  being  carried  out  within  its  own  borders.  That 
is  we  would  find  that  ihe  condensories,  for  instance,  are  operated  in 
the  districts  furtherest  away  from  the  great  Chicago,  and  the  smaller 
Milwaukee  markets.  But  the  most  interesting  feature  of  the  charts 
is  the  decline,  not  only  relative,  but  actual,  in  the  butter  and  cheese 
i  . 


so        ,  - 

prcMiuctioii  of  Kew  York  State^  lunf  tlie  premier  dairy  state  of  tlie 
Unioii.  Witli  the  increase  in  tlie  demand  for  fresh  milk,  aud  the 
opening  up  of  practically  the  whole  of  that  state  to  the  great  markets 
it  possesses  by  means  of  the  motor  truck  and  good  roads,  there  is 
mot  m  much  butter  and  cbeese  made  now  aa  there  was  fifteen  jears 
afo.  Condensed  milk  p^||Mk|g|w|  |g  increasing  rapidly^  pertiaps  be* 
cause  it  is  a  newer  indosflHHi  tbe  other  two,  but  rdatividy  it  is 
dfidlBingy  wben  compared  with  any  of  the  Western  States.  Thus  in 
tiic  condensed  milk  industry  the  Pacilic  Coast  State  of  Washington 
is  making  a  district  bid  for  leadership,  as  is  California  in  the  butter 
and  cheese  industries.  Of  course  there  are  great  cities,  with  great 
npilk  demands  in  each  of  these  newer  states,  but  they  are  not  so 
large  or  so  nnmieroiis  as  in  the  more  populous  states  of  tfae  East 
ne  one  exception  to  these  stattanents  is  found  in  the  case  of  Illinois, 
wliere  the  increase  in  coideiised  milk  production  has  recently  been 

JPart  of  the  great  increase  recently  in  manufactured  milk  prod- 
ucts is  probably  due  to  the  hand  separator,  for  some  of  these  prod-  ' 
iict%  especially  buftter,  demand  cream  rather  than  milk.  The  farmer 
is  thus  able  to  separate  his  cream  on  the  farm,  feed  tiie  skimmed 
milk  to  his  stock,  and  take  the  cream  only  to  market.  Evidence 
that  this  is  occurring  is  found  in  the  fact  that,  of  the  raw  materials 
for  manufactured  milk  products  in  1914,  cream  showed  an  increase 
of  69.5%  over  1909,  while  milk  showed  a  decrease  of  14.7%,  though 
there  is  still  almost  four  times  as  much  milk  as  cream  used.  But 
in  1900  the  ratio  was  saren  to  one. 

Gondensories,  be  th^  located  in  the  remoter  districts  or  nearer 
the  cities,  are  n<y|  inirkets  for  surplus  milk  to  any  great  extent,  be- 
cause they  must  operate  steadily,  and  because  they  usually  pur- 
chase a  given  amount  of  milk  from  a  given  producer  each  day.  The 
indnstiy  requires  expensive  machinery,  and  relatively  large  invest- 
menti^  re^res  steady  work  in  ordar  that  tbm  may  be  profitable 
operation.  We  find  that  one-half  <^  aE  the  empk^ees  of  condensories  . 
work  every  day  in  the  year,  a  most  extraordinarily  high  percentage 
relative  to  other  industries,  while  practically  all  the  remainder  work 
over  330  days.  One  can  readily  understand  from  these  facts  that 
the  condensories  do  not  handle  much  surplus  milk. 

The  average  cheese-f^tory  employe  works  between  180  and  240 
clapt  a  year,  many,  of  course,  working  more  or  less  than  this  num- 
ber of  days.  Hare  we  see  the  one  indnstiy  of  tiie  three  that  is  in 
the  best  x>ositlon  to  utilize  surplus,  but  it  is  the  smallest  industry 
too.  In  the  butter  industry,  although  the  men  do  not  work  so 
steadUy  as  in  the  condensed  milk  industry,  they  work  above  the 
average  of  all  manufacturing  planta  Of  course,  even  the  conden- 
sories take  some  extra  milk  at  certain  8ea8on%  Jmt  not  enough  to 
affect  the  snrplns  problisn.  . 


51 


Solutions  of  the  Suri^iis  Problem 

1.  Iliere  are  cMy  distributors,  who  not  only  make  ice  cream,  but 
who  ahM>  make  butter  and  cheese  during  the  sui^lus  season  or  Btim 
the  cream  for  later  use.  Thus  one  firm  testified  tiiat  it  has  success- 
fully stored  cream  for  six  months.  This  storage  of  cream  with  the 
Sl^  ""i  «  ^"^^  to  feed  o^  his  own  farm  is  one  of  the 

SLS'^k'^  .1      T?^""  '^'^^        distributor  is  also 

relieving  the  situation  by  establishing,  in  connection  with  his  busi- 
nes^  milk  manufacturing  plants,  either  ice  cream,  butter,  cheese  ih> 
condensed  milk.  This  is  done,  if  done  at  all,  in  the  f«U  knawledtt 
that  manufacturing  costs  Avill  be  higher  than  those  of  liie  mai^ 
facturer  m  the  remoter  dairying  districts,  for  tlie  reasons  pointed 
out  above^  with  the  exertion  of  ioe  cream. 

2.  Farmers'  cooperative  creameries  as  wdl  M  «miMi«ial  ckrib- 
enes  can  store  the  cream  dnriag  the  «irplm  mmm,  tiiniii«  ike 
akinuBad  Bulk  back  for  growing  animala 

3.  But  the  real  solution  of  the  turpltu  problem  i»  to  get  rid  of 

V'^^S^uTT"  ""^^  ikrougnout  the  year 

A  ^^J2f  *  '"'^  P«»«rti«»  0/  ww»  freshen,  in  and  around 
Augu^,  September  and  October.  <^ouna 

r«L  ^-^  if  dairyman  mast  receive  a  much  higher  price 
rdativdy  m  October,  November  and  December  than  in  slay,  5un^ 
and  J,ay.  This  same  end  can  be  accomplished  by  contracts  ^ving 
to  the  dairyman  a  steady  price  throughout  the  year  for  that  ammurt 
of  milk  delivered  during  the  seasons  of  scardly. 

tht  T^.  """^  <^«^«  especially  during 


GRADING 


COMMITTEE  IN  CHARGE:  Dean  Harry  Hayward,  Delaware,  CMirtmn; 
Hon.  George  H.  Hall,  Delaware;  Morris  T.  Phillips,  PeunsylTaiiia;  Hartman 
K.  Harrison,  Maryland. 


One  of  tlie  important  dnties  of  tke  Tri-State  Milk  Commission 
was  to  study  t!ie  quality  and  wholesomeness  of  the  milk  supplied 
for  direct  consumption  to  tke  various  mnnicipalities  of  tlie  states 
concerned. 

It  is  generally  recognised  that  the  food  value  of  milk  is  based 
upon  two  main  factors:  the  nutrients  the  milk  actually  contains, 
and  the  care  that  has  been  exercised  to  obtain  milk  to  be  oflfered  for 
sale  from  only  healthy,  normal  cows  and  to  keep  the  milk  free  from 
contaminating  influences  of  every  character  during  its  transpor- 
tation from  the  cow  to  the  consumer. 

To  determine  the  food  content  of  milk,  certain  generally  accepted 
chemical  and  physical  tests  are  used.  Tliese  are  comparatively 
simple,  eamly  made  and  are  fairly  accurate.  A  determination  of 
the  amount  of  sediment  the  milk  carries,  as  well  as  the  number  of 
bacteria  it  contains,  gives  a  reliable  incHcation  of  the  samtarj  con- 
ditions under  which  the  milk  is  produced,  cared  for,  and  of  its  gen- 
eral wholesomeness.  None  of  these  tests  is  sufficient  in  themselves, 
but  all  should  be  used  in  determining  the  value  Qf  milk  for  human 

•Phe  main  reasmi  for  grading  market  milk  is  that  the  consumer 
may  get  what  he  pays  for.  Standard  grades  are  now  quite  gen- 
erally recognized  and  the  following):  recommendations  of  the  Commisi- 
sion  are  in  harmony  with  the  grades  advocated  by  authorities  on 
this  subject  and  are  used  by  many  cities  in  adjoining  states.  It  is 
important  that  these  grades  be  uniform  among  the  states. 

The  inadequacy  of  milk  inspection  even  in  cities  is  shown  by 
the  following  tables  submitted  to  the  Conmii.ssion  by  Dr.  Neva  Dear- 
dort  showing  the  amount  now  spent  on  food  inspection  in  Philadel- 
phia and  the  amount  necessary  to  spend  in  order  to  have  adequate 
milk  inspection. 


53 


Present  and  Proposed  Milk  Inspection  Budget  for  Philadelphia, 

Submitted  6y  Dr.  Neva  Deardorff. 


Details. 


Present  Budget. 

VmS.  for  milk  and  other 

food  inspec-tion. 


Total. 


Cblef  milk  ins^tor,  

AMlatai^  Milk  iaipeetor. 


Clerk  

Printing,  atotlonwy  «ad  oOm  snp- 
pUea. 

Oar  fan,  


Upkeep  of  aotomobiles  

PvdMaa  af  aaaplaa  of  milk. 

Parchase  of  automobiles  , 


Nomber  A  aalarj. 


1  @  $1,900 
IS  9  !.(«» 


Amonnt. 


118,620 


1,900 
1«,3» 


Recommended  Badget. 
For  milk  Inspection  excln* 
sively. 


Number  *  aalaryv 


1  9  «i.9ao 
18   e  standard- 
ised salariaa. 
1  ®  1900 


PIILmt.' 

1, 
1,' 


15  inspectors  @ 
|60  per  year 
each. 

3  automobiles  & 
$15  per  iMtttt 

10,000  samples  at 
average  of  $.05 
each 

3  @  $500  to  f800«  < 


*Noaatoinobiles  owned  at  present;  first  year  will,  ibeiefore.  antttt  gnalar  ngmmm  %m 


The  question  of  grading  milk  has  been  discussed  quite  genmOly 
during  the  year.  The  producers  are  in  favor  of  it  because  filiffy  be- 
liere  hi^^r  prices  can  be  obtained  for  the  hi^er  grades  at  milk.  The 
eommm  axe  anxibiis  to  obtain  milk  of  differmt  known  reliable 
grades  for  children,  adults,  cooking,  etc.  The  Commission  feels  that 
grading  milk  will  be  established  slowly,  and  it  recommends  the 
adoption  of  standards  without  delay;  that  is  to  say,  after  a  thorough 
study  of  the  local  conditions,  and  with  the  cooperative  effort  of 
producers,  distributors,  consumers  and  health  officials. 

As  to  its  Sanitary  Charact&,  ihe  Committee  recommaids  in  addi- 
tion to  certified  milk,  three  grades  of  milk,  the  first  two  of  whi(^ 
would  be  for  use  as  milk,  the  last  or  lowest  grade  for  cooking  and 
manufacturing  purposes:    Grade  "A,"  Grade  "B"  and  Grade  "C." 

As  an  indication  of  the  general  plan  suggested  for  adoption,  the 
following  outline  is  given. 


/ 

Certilted  or  "AA" 
Milk. 

••A*' 

Tuberculin  Test 
and  Physical 
Examination. 

Physical 
Examination. 

Physical 
Examination. 

Medically 
Bzamiaed. 

Sickness    to  be 
reparted. 

'  Sickness    to  be 
reported. 

10.000   to  60,000. 

10,000   to  200.000 

As  determined  by 
proper  board.* 

Farm  aeora,'   

80 

6S 

BottUag,   

BcQntred. 

Seqnired. 

Bottles  or  cans. 

Beqoired. 

Beqnlred. 

Bacteria  immedi- 
ately   after  pas- 
tanrlaation.  , 

10,000  to  30,000 

55,000  to  75,000. 

Physical 


Sickness    to  be 
reported. 


40 


Cans  only. 


Heqaired. 


6%000  ti>  lOO.IM. 


•The  Commission  believes  that  the  standard  for  bacteria  in  erado  "B"  milk  sliniiM  ha 
200.000  to  2,000,000.  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  immediate  adoption  of  this  ' 
aw!k  nmt  tha  Mtter  ahonld  l»  laft  nt  Ika  dlaewtleB  vt  tha  prapar  pJSUe  avtUtiS. 


54' 

.■V 

The  ham  scores  sn^ested  are  to  be  taken  as  something  to  work 
to  rather  than  as  an  arbitrary  standiM;d« 

When  milk  is  aoM  as  certilled  under  the  reqniremeiits  of  the 
AjpMTican  Pnhlic  Health  Association,  ike  grade  lettering  ahonld  be 
optional,  not  reqnired. 

In  order  to  get  the  hcneficial  rr suits  of  grading,  grades  should  be 
established,  so  that  a  reasonable  amount  of  the  total  supply  will  be 
III  0rade  ''A."  This  can  be  done  by  a  careful  study  of  the  eating 
mnMHtms  m  the  locality  under  considmiMon,  m  suggested.  In  grad- 
liig  milky  the  grades  aball  be  established  after  fhre  torti  taken  owr 
a  period  not  exceeding  seren  days*  All  grading  shall  be  establi^ed 
after  at  least  five  bacterial  tests  have  been  taken  over  a  period  not 
less  than  a  week  nor  more  than  a  month,  and  at  least  80%  must 
fall  below  the  limit  set,  for  the  grade  for  which  the  daaaiiication 
In  'desired* 


Chm^i  I 
iniraSnil 


Reguirement  Recommended 

Ml^  J«o«^  not  M  in  ^  n^,  ^ 

wlUk,  and  adjusted  or  siandardhed  mUh  should  be  8.26. 

Minimum  requirements  for  fat  in  milk  not  labeled  and  guaranteed 
to  be  BM. 

Standardlzatioa  of  Fit 

The  Commission  favors  the  immediate  altering  of  laws,  ao  that 
the  fat  in  milk  can  be  bon^t  and  sold  with  regard  to  the  true  yalne— 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  purchase  and  sale  of  cream  is  now  done. 

In  this  way  the  consumer  will  more  rapidly  appreciate  the  true 
food  value  of  the  milk  he  buys.^ 

The  standardlBation  of  milk  should  bo  allowed  by  the  addition 
of  milky  skimmed  milk  or  cream. 

When  labeled  and  guaranteed  as  to  its  fat  content,  milk  testing 
1%  or  more  should  be  allowied  to  be  sold. 


Present  Ijegal  Standard* 


•  'Slate. 

Milk. 

• 

Skte  mP^ 

CKani* 

Total 
MOlids. 

Soli'ls 
not  fat. 

Fat. 

aot'ftit. 

'Vat. 

13.00 

S.2S 

9.25 

liJ 

11 

•lf«  state  ttaadards. 

*mmm  **OfmdlBg  aai  Lalialias  of  Milk  aatf  Cteam,**  iaraad  kr  Baatim  Chamber  of  Conumfca^ 


IS. 


1]^}  Staidatda  t§r  pttifj  Prpducta,  U.  S.  Dept.  qi  Affleiiytara. 


6& 


ttinimum  BequkremenU  Beeommtmdei  for  The$e  SUttet. 


Sliitei 

Milk. 

Skim  adlk 

Okaaak 

'    Total  SliUds 
solids.       aot  fat. 

Fat. 

SoUds 
not  fat. 

 ,  .  .„      .  .jiMiltlil^ 

3.S 

[  "■  - 

II 

In  some  localities  there  is  dissatisfaction  with  the  metheida  of  tart* 
ing  for  butter  fat.  To  overcome  thh»  eon^tion^  in  a  large  measim^ 
law0  should  be  panrtd  granting  liccsnses  to  cteasMrieB,  milk  reedv- 
ing  stations,  and  establishing  rules  and  regulations  for  persons  mak- 
ing tieets  for  fat.* 

As  a  means  of  assuring  proper  standards  in  the  production  and 
distribution  of  milk  and  in  the  purchase  and  sales  price  for  mill^ 
tlie  Gonuuisaiim  makes  the  foUowiiig  reeomm^datioDs: 

1.  As  the  only  adequate  means  of  controlling  the  sanitary  con- 
ditions under  which  milk  is  produced  permits  should  be  issued  to 
producers.  This  permit  should  be  issued  by  the  appio^iate  StatO 
Board  and  tiie  fee^  if  fee  Itase  be>  shaold  not  be  In  excess  of  one 
dK^lar. 

2.  Permits  to  be  issued  to  aU  producm,  distribatom  and  ro- 
oeivers  of  milk.  If  the  same  perscm  or  firm  carries  on  mum  t%iii 
one  d  these  buttnesses,  then  he  shall  have  a  licensie  for  each. 

3.  All  milk,  skimmed  milk  m  cream  not  eovmd  the  aiiovo 
pennits  must  be  brought  into  'te  State^  inspected,  and  siAMiliir 
the  profhrions  ei  a  special  permit  to  bo  issued  by  the  prop»  state 
authority. 

4.  Tlie  basis  of  inspection  should  be  the  gomnment  score  card, 
or  its  equlvalait  system. 

5.  Producers'  yfgmAam  lEiiould  be  inq^iected  as  to  sanitary  condi- 
tions, at  least  tiinee  times  a  year. 

6.  All  animals  producing  milk  for  sale  should  be  physically  ex- 
amined by  a  C(»i^tent  veterinarian,  and  these  veterinarians  should 
work  under  the  direction  of  the  livestock  sanitary  boards  or  bu- 
reaus of  the  respective  states.  These  veterinary  inspections  shall 
be  made  at  least  twice  (2)  a  year. 

7.  Dairy  and  ftirm  inspectors  fihould  be  appointed  by  the  State 
Board  of  Agriculture  or  Agricultural  Commission  from  a  list  of 


H>tac«lir  4L  Fattoo  DklvenUy,  imrieidtwal  aapwhtat  Btotiea. 


50 


men  sQlmiittod  by  the  »tate  (College.  Said  eoUege  ta  make  up  thw 
list  from  the  men  who  have  taken  iad  iiaased  competitive  examina- 

tions.   The  inspectors  appointed  shall  inspect  all  places  producing, 
receiving,  or  handling  milk. 

8.  Milk  testers  shall  be  licensed  after  proper  examination.  The 

Committee  cannot  offer  definite  rules  for  preventing  dishonesty  of 
testers,  but  if  a  tester  should  be  found  to  have  knowingly  nflMMj 
calmest  test,  his  license  should 

The  Commission  has  read  the  following  proposed  inspection  law 
drawn  by  th^  f^tate  Livestock  Sanitary  Board  of  the  Departmwit  of 
Agriculture  ii?  enactment  in  Penn^lvania  and  approves  its  general 
principles. 

AN  ACT 

Relating  to  milk  and  milk  food  products;  providing  for  the  licensing  of  certain 
estaiblisliments  producing,  handling  or  manufacturing  milk  or  milk  food 
products;  providing  for  the  licensing  of  perwms  shipping  or  bring- 
ing milk  or  cream  into  this  State;  prescribing  certain  powers  and  duties 
of  the  State  Livestock  Sanitary  Board,  its  officers  and  agents  and  pre- 
Mibing  a  penalty  for  the  violation  of  this  act  and  of  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  the  State  Livestock  Sanitary  Board. 

.  Sectiim  1.  Be  it  ^cted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  Commonwealth  of  Penni^lvania  in  General  Assembly 

nuet,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  the  anthority  of  the  same;  Thattlie 
following  terms  wherever  used  in  this  act  shall  have  the  following 
meanings,  respectively,  designated  for  each,  viz: 

The  terms  "milk"  and  "milk  food  products"  shall  include  and  ap- 
li^  to  cream,  wIm^  milk,  skim  mUk,  butter  milk,  butter,  cheese,  con- 
densed and  evaporated  milks  and  food  prodncts  made  from  mUk 
or  creanL 

The  word  "establishment"  shall  include  (1)  any  building  or 
structure,  or  any  place,  or  any  vehicle,  or  railroad  or  railway  car 
where  milk  or  milk  food  products  are  produced,  stored,  handled, 
tittnsported,  sold,  offered  for  sale  or  exposed  for  sale;  (2)  the  ground 
npon  wiiicii  sndi  bnilding  or  stractnre  is  meted,  and  so  mach  ground 
adjacent  thereto  as  is  nsed  in  carrying  ont  the  basiness  (rf  sndi  es- 
tablishment. 

The  term  "unwholesome"  shall  include  all  milk  or  milk  food  prod- 
ucts which  are  obtained  from  animals  that  are  afflicted  with  anthrax, 
blackleg,  contagions  pleura-pneumonia,  rinderpest,  hemorrhagic  sep- 
ticemia, Texas  fever,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  rabies,  mastitas,  septic- 
metritis,  pyania,  septicemia,  advanced  cases  of  actinomycosis  or 
ftctinomycosis  of  the  ndder,  advanced  or  generalized  tobercalosb^  tu- 
berculosis of  the  udder,  or  any  other  disease  or  condition  rendering 
milk  produced  from  animals  afflicted  therewith  unsuitable  or  dan- 
gerous for  food. 


6T 


The  term  "unwholesome"  shall  also  include  milk  or  milk  food 
products  which  have  been  placed  in  unclean  vessds  or  exposed  to 
unsanitary  conditions,  and  all  other  milk  or  milk  food  prodncts 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Btate  Livestock  Banitary  Board  ate  un- 
fit  for  human  food. 

The  word  "equipment"  shall  include  all  cattle,  machinery,  fixtures, 
containers,  vessels,  tools,  implements,  and  apparatus  used  in  and 
about  an  establishment. 

The  word  "person"  sliall  include  individuahs,  co-partnerships,  cor- 
porations and  associations.  Masculine  words  dmU  include  the 
feminine  or  neuter.  The  singular  shall  include  the  plural. 

The  word  **Board"  shall  mean  the  "State  Livestock  Sanitaiy 
Board." 

Section  2.  Every  establishment,  including  all  equipment  thei^ 
or  thereon,  shall  be  kept  in  a  clean  and  sanitary  condition. 

Section  3.  It  is  unlawful  for  any  p^*8on  to  prepare  for  food,  or 
sell,  or  offer  for  sale,  or  expose  for  sale,  or  have  in  his  possession  for 
the  purpose  of  sale,  as  human  food,  any  unwholesome  nulk  or  un- 
wholesome milk  food  i}roduct. 

Section  4  It  is  unlawful  in  an  establishment  for  any  person  other 
than  the  owner,  lessee,  or  manager  of  such  establishment,  or  the 
agent  or  employe  of  such  owner,  lessee,  or  manager,  to  touch  or 
handle  any  milk  or  milk  food  products,  or  for  any  one  to  permit  any 
milk  or  milk  food  product  in  an  establishment  to  be-  ^] 
sects,  animals  o?  fowls. 

This  section  lEdiaU  not  apply  to  any  agent  of  any  of  the  Boards  of 
inspection  now  authorized  by  law. 

Section  5.  It  is  unlawful  for  any  person,  his  r^resentative  or 
agent  to  advertise,  sell  or  offer  for  sale  milk  as  "certified  milk*' 
unless  such  milk  has  actually  been  certified  under  authority  of  a 
duly  organized  medical  milk  commission  recognized  by  the  American 
Association  of  Medical  Milk  Commissions. 

J anuary,  one  thousand  nine  hun- 
dred and  eighteen,  and  before  the  first  day  of  each  succeeding  year, 
everj'^  person  operating  any  establishment  where  milk  or  milk  food 
products  are  sold,  or  produced,  or  prepared,  or  manu^ctured,  or  col- 
lected, or  any  two  w  more  of  them,  shaU  r^^«*  each  such  estab- 
lishment operated  by  him'  with  the  Board  giving  the  location  and 
the  name  and  address  of  the  owner  thereof. 

No  such  establishment  shall  be  liceiis^ed  which  has  been  found  to 
be  unsuitable  for  the  purposes  for  which  the  license  is  sou^t.  1!1ie 
form  of  such  license  certificate  shall  be  ^^leribed  1^  the  Board. 


m 


ThB  ie^  imid  to  the  Board  under  the  provisions  of  tliis  section  sliail 
be  immediately  paid  into  tbe  State  Ihreasnry  for  the  use  of  the  Com- 
numwealtli. 

SeeMon  7.  On  and  after  liie  first  day  of  Jannaiy,  one  timisaad 
nine  Inndred  and  ei#teen,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  pmon  to 
i^wate  any  establishinent  where  milk  or  milk  food  products  are  sold, 
produced,  prepared  or  manufactured,  or  collected,  without  obtaining 
a  license  for  tiie  current  year  from  the  Board. 

Section  8.  If,  at  any  time,  after  the  issuance  of  a  license,  and 
within  the  period  for  which  such  license  is  issued,  it  is  found  that  the 
condition  of  any  licensed  establishment  is  not  such  as  repreeented 
in  the  application  for  a  license,  or  if  within  sadi  period  its  c<mdi* 
Hon  falls  below  the  standard  prescribed  by  the  Board  entitling  it  to 
such  license^  the  Board  may  rerdke  the  licaise. 

Section  9.  Any  parson,  who  is  aggrieved  by  the  refusal  of  the 
Board  to  issue  a  license,  or  by  the  revocation  of  a  license^  inay,  wlttiin 
thir%  days  aftar  the  order  of  the  Board  rafOsing  or  re¥oking  sndi 
license,  file  a  petition  in  the  court  of  common  pleas,  praying  for  a 
review  of  soch  order  by  the  court.  Pending  such  review  and  until  a 
decree  of  said  court  has  been  made  granting  or  refusing  the  same, 
such  license  shall  forthwith  be  issued  or  reinstated,  and  the  whole 
ease  shall  be  heard  and  determined  by  the  court  upon  potion,  mle^ 
answer  and  testinioii^,  in  sneh  manner  as  the  eeurt  naj  by  ordnr  di- 
recti*' 

Section  10.  After  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  nine  hun- 
dred and  eighteen^  no  person  shall  ship  or  biii^  into  this  Slate,  (from 
without  the  State),  for  use  as  human  food,  any  ndXk  eraun,  unless 
such  person  has  made  application  for  and  secured  a  license  so  to  do 
from  the  Board.  Applications  for  such  licenses  shall  be  made  before 
lie  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  eighteen, 
and  before  the  first  day  of  each  succe^ing  year.  The  application 
for  any  such  license  shall  state  the  location  of  the  establishment 
where  snch  milk  or  cream  is  produced  or  collected,  and  tlie  name  and 
aidless  of  the  owner,  and  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  fee  to  be  fixed 
by  the  Board,  but  in  m  case  to  exceed  one  dollar.  Such  fee  shall  in 
all  cases  be  uniform. 

Upon  the  receipt  of  any  such  application,  if  the  Board  if  satisfied 
that  the  establishment  in  question  conforms  to  the  standard  required 
by  this  State  for  similar  establishments,  it  shall  issue  a  Ueaise  to 
sudi  person  authorizing  h||||||ship  or  bring  milk  or  cream  Into  this 
State  for  nse  as  human  the  Board  may  refuse  a  li- 

cense.  If  the  Board  refuses  to  issue  any  license  it  jEftiall  return  the 
lee  enclosed  with  the  application. 


If  any  person  shall  ship  iuto  this  State  from  without  the  iStaic, 
any  milk  or  cream,  without  securing  the  license  required  by  this 
Board,  or  any  agent  of  the  Board,  is  authorised  to  condemn  such 
milk  or  cream  and  to  mark  and  treat  the  same  in  such  a  way  that 
the  same  cannot  thereafter  be  used  as  human  food. 

The  Board  may  revoke,  at  any  time,  any  license  issued  under  this 
section,  if  it  is  satislied  that  tlie  establi aliment,  where  such  milk  or 
cream  is>  produced,  or  collected,  falls  below  the  standard  required 
by  this  State  for  similar  establishments. 

This  section  does  not  apply  to  any  establishment  producing  or  col- 
lecting milk  or  cream  in  any  Stsute  where  this  act  or  similar  pro- 
visions are  adopted  and  enforced  and  which  allows  like  i>rivilegei 
to  the  citizens  of  this  State.  Tliis  section  shall  not  be  constru^ 
in  case  an  unforseen  emergency  arises  ci  eating  a  shortage  of  milk  in 
any  part  of  this  State,  to  prevent  tJie  shipping  or  bringing  into  this 
State  of  any  milk  or  cream  for  a  period  of  not  more  than  five  days, 
in  order  to  relieve  such  milk  shortagfe. 

Section  11.  The  Board  may  classify  aU  establishments  whwe  milk 
or  milk  food  products  are  sold,  produced,  prepared  or  manufactured, 
with  a  view  of  making  such  classification  the  basis  for  the  issuance 
of  the  licenses  provided  for  in  this  act. 

The  Board  may  also  fix  standards  for  grades  of  milk  and  cream 
to  apply  to  milk  and  cream  produced  outside  of,  and  shipped  into  the 
Commonwealtii,  as  well  as  to  milk  and  cream  produced  within  the 
Commonweidth. 

Section  12.  The  Board,  in  enforcing  the  provisions  of  this  act,  may 
assign  any  employe  of  the  Board  to  perform  duties  as  agent  under 
this  act. 

^ach  wnploye  assigned  to  serve  as  agent  under  tliis  act  shall  have 
knowledge  of  the  diseases  of  milk  producing  animals,  and  shall  be 
versed  in  the  conditions  that  alfect  the  wholesomeness  of  milk  and 
milk  food  products.  An  appropriate  standard  of  ntnesalMm^h 
agents  shall  be  maintained  by  the  Board.  '^^llBr 

The  qualification,  powers,  and  duties  of  each  such  agent  shall  be 
gov^ed  by  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  by  such  rulef?  and  regu- 
lations for  the  enforcement  thereof  as  are  adopted  by  the  Board. 

Section  IS.  Any  duly  authorised  agmt  or  employe  of  the  Board 
may,  at  any  time,  enter  any  establishment  and  examine  the  same,  to 
ascertain  whether  the  provisions  of  this  act  are  being  observed. 

Section  14.  It  is  unlawful  to  hinder,  imjiede,  or  prevent  any  dulv 
authorised  agent  or  employe  of  the  Board  from  entering  any  estab- 
lishment in  the  performance  of  his  duty,  or  from  making  any  ex- 
amination ordered  in  enforcing  this  act 


m 


Seetioii  15.  If,  upon  ezaminatioii  ot  any  estaUirfuBent  anj  mi- 
idialeBOine  milk  or  milk  food  prodnctB  is  found,  mA  milk  or  mUk 
food  product  sliall  be  condemned,  properly  marked  or  designated,^  and 
treated  in  such  a  way  that  it  cannot  thereafter  be  used  for  human 
food. 

Section  16.  If,  upon  examination,  it  is  found  that  any  estaWisfli- 
inent,  or  any  part  thereof,  or  any  equipment,  is  iji  an  unclean  or  un- 
sanitary condition,  or  is  being  conducted  or  used  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make  it  probable  that  the  milk  or  milk  food  products  therein,  or 
produced  thereiii,  may  be  rendered  miwholesoBie,  or  if  it  is  found  that 
sack  establiitment  or  any  part  ihmwd  or  any  eqnipmeiDLt  is  being  con- 
duced 4>r  used  in  ?iolation  of  this  act,  or  if  milk  is  being  produced 
from  animals  affected  with  any  of  the  diseases  or  conditions  enumer- 
ated in  section  one,  clause  three  of  this  act,  the  agent  making  such 
examination  shall  report  such  unlawful  condition  to  the  Board,  aad 
iftall  at  the  same  time  in  writing,  notil^  the  ownor,  lessee,  or  manager 
of  flm  establiflhnmt. 

Upon  DBcdpt  of  such  r^rt,  tlie  Board,  by  its  ex«cnMTe  officer,  or 
otherwise  as  it  may  direct,  shall  notify  the  owner,  lessee,  or  manager, 
of  the  result  of  the  examination,  and  direct  that  the  unlawful  con- 
dition be  remedied  within  the  time  specified  in  the  notice.  The  time 
so  specified  shall  be  not  less  than  twenty-four  hours,  unless  the  un- 
lawful condition  mentioned  in  the  notice  can,  in  the  opinion  of  tiie 
Board,  Its  ^xecutime  officer,  or  its  agent,  be  remored  immediately. 

If,  upon  the  expiration  of  the  time  specified  in  the  notice,  the  con- 
dition so  reported  to  exist  is  not  remedied,  the  Board,  by  its  executive 
officer,  may  order  the  owner  or  any  of  his  ajorents  or  employes  to  dis- 
continue the  use  of  such  establishment  for  preparing,  tranefporting, 
selling,  offering  for  sale,  exposing  for  sale  or  giving  away  any  miUc 
or  ndlk  food  products  to  be  used  as  human  food,  or  any  milk  or  cream 
for  tlie  p«r^Niiiitiou  of  mOk  food  products. 

It  is  unlawful  to  use  such  establishment  or  any  part  thereof  for 
transporting,  selling,  offering  for  sale,  exposing  for  sale  or  giving  away 
any  milk  or  milk  food  products  to  be  used  as  human  food,  or  any  milk 
or  cream  for  the  preparation  of  milk  food  products,  until  the  unlawful 
condition  reported  to  edst  hm  been  remedied  to  tiie  satisfaetiiHi  of 
the  officer  of  the  Board. 

The  closing  of  an  establishment,  or  any  part  thereof,  for  the  pur- 
poses enumerated  in  this  section,  shall  not  preclude  prosecution  for 
violation  of  this  act. 

Section  17.   It  is  unlawful  for  any  ag^t  of  the  Board: — 

1.  fo  approve  or  piss  aiqr  milk  or  any  mUk  food  {miuct  found 
to  bo  uswholeBoine: 


61 


2.  To  fail  to  condemn  and  mark,  and  treat  in  such  a  way  that 
it  cannot  thereafter  be  used  as  human  food,  any  unwholesome 

or  unwholesome  milk  food  product,  found  on  ezaminatiou'  of  an  en* 
taUishment  to  be  unfit  for  human  food; 

3.  To  fail  to  report  as  required  any  violation  of  this  act; 

4.  Directly  or  indirectly  to  accept  or  agree  to  accept  anything 
of  value,  monetary  or  otherwise,  given  or  offered  to  such  agent  to 
influence  him  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties; 

Section  18.  It  is  unlawful  for  any  person  to  give  or  offer  to  give^ 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  an  agent  or  employe  of  the  Board,  anything 
of  value,  monetary  or  othenvise,  with  intent  to  influence  such  agent 
or  employe  in  tilie  discharge  of  his  duties  under  tiie  pTovisions  of 
this  act. 

Y  Section  19.  This  .act  shall  be  enforced  by  the  Board  through  its 
officers  and  agents.  To  that  end  the  Board  shall  adopt  and  promul- 
gate sudi  rules  and  regulations  as  are  deemed  necessaiy  for  the  en- 
forcement l&ecseof. 

Section  20.  Any  person  violating  any  of  the  p»y?isloa0  of  this  act 
or  any  rule  or  regulaticm  <rf  the  Board  adopted  for  its  «iforc^ent 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misd^neamH^,  and  upon  conviction  ttiereof,  shall 
be  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  not  less  than  twenty-five  dollars,  and  not 
more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  to  undergo  imprisonment  not 
exceeding  one  year,  or  both.  •  If  the  violation  is  by  a  corporation,  co- 
^H^l^rtnership,  or  association,  the  officers  or  directors  of  sudi  eorpcm- 
Om  or  the  members  of  mich  partnersMp  or  assodation,  itn  agents  or 
employes  shall  be  guilly  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  theieof 
be  punished  as  aforesaid. 

The  fines  imposed  and  collected  under  this  section  shall  be  paid 
to  a  duly  authorized  agent  of  the  Board,  and  shall  be  paid  by  the 
Board  into  the  State  Treasury,  for  the  use  of  the  Commonwealtii. 

Section  21.  Any  duty  imposed  upon,  or  power  given  to  the  Board 
by  this  act,  may  be  done  or  exercised  as  the  Board  may,  by  standing 
or  spedal  order,  direct 

Section  22.  If  any  part  of  this  act  shall  be  declared  unconstitu- 
tional, such  decision  shall  not  affect  the  remaining  provisions  of  the 
act. 


62 


THE  FOOD  VALUE  OF  MILK  IN  ITS  RELATIOlSf  TO  PRICE 


COMMITrEE  IN  CHARGE:  Frederick  Brady,  Delaware,  Chairman;  C.  E. 
Carothers,  Pennsylvania;  Samuel  M.  Harrington,  Delawwre;  Clyde  L.  King, 
PennsyivaiiliL 

The  Commission  gave  special  consideration  to  the  relation  of  the 
food  value  of  milk  to  the  price  paid  by  thje  consamer.  Among  oilier 
experts  called  to  give  testimony  on  this  matter  was  Dr»  Aloaao  R 
Taylor,  Professor  of  Physiological  Chemistry  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania.  The  tables  given  below  were  all  furnished  by  Dr. 
Taylor  and  much  of  this  report  is  based  upon  his  testimony. 

1,  Milk  is  An  Absolute  Requisite  for.  Children. 

Milk  is  an  essential,  of  at  least  a  highly  desirable,  food  through  the 
entire  growth  period  of  chiMhood  largely  on  account  of  the  quality  of 
protein  in  it.  It  is  a  Grade-A  protein.  A  child  ought  to  have  a  liter 
of  milk  for  the  first  six  years  and  a  half  liter  of  milk  from  that  time 
on  to  fifteen  as  part  of  a  mixed  diet. 

Dr.  Taylor  laid  emphasis  upon  the  fact,  which  involves  milk  and 
everything  else,  that  the  basal  heat  requiremoit  of  adolescence  is 
higher  by  25%  than  in  the  adult  It  has  been  shown  that  growing 
boys  in  a  boys'  school  consume  as  much  food  as  hard  working  men, 
or  more,  and  tliat  there  ha«  been  from  this  point  of  vieAv  very  wide- 
spread sub-nutrition  as  against  the  potential  between  the  ages  of 
12  and  17. 

2.  Milk  as  a  Food  Compared  With  Other  Animal  Products. 

The  following  table  shows  the  per  cent  of  protein  and  fat  and  the 
number  of  calories  supplied  by  a  pound  of  milk  as  compared  with  a 
pound  of  animal  products. 

Food  Vmtue  of  MUk  md  Other  Amnml  Products.* 


mik,  

Butter  

Oheese  

€beeae,  ienn,  . 

iteK^i  

BjMf,"  meiinin, 
■novVi  xac,  . . . 
'IBwk.  lean,  . .. 

Wowl.  

Ifernnff,   

Cttd  ,   


Welirlit. 

m 

Protein 
percent. 

Ft! 
percent. 

Cnlortee. 

1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  111. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
•         1  lb. 

B 

3.8 
86 

3  - 
t.3 
2S 
7 

» 

IS 
tt 
4 

800 
3.000 
2.000 

WO 

eoo 

1.400 

900 
l."00 
900 
750 
370 
110 

40 
11-12 
U 
It 
13 
IS 
13 
U 
S 

121&,  page  39. 


The  higher  value  of  milk  for  food  when  com])are(l  with  other  ani- 
mal products  was  illustrated  as  follows  by  Professor  Fred  Rasmus- 
sen,  of  State  College,  Pennsylvania,  in  his  testimony  More  the  com- 
mission: "A  quart  erf  milk  is  equal  in  food  value  to  eight  eggs.  With 
milk  at  9  cents  per  quart  and  eggs  at  45  cents  per  dozen,  the  con- 
sumer pays  3.3  times  as  much  for  the  same  food  value  when  buying 
eggs  as  when  buying  milk.  With  round  steak  at  28  cents  per  pound 
the  consumer  pays  2.3  times  as  much  for  the  same  food  value  as  found 
in  a  quart  of  milk  at  9  cents." 


r-'^  it 


3.   Milk  as  a  Food  Compared  With  Grains,  Cereals  and  Vegetables 

The  following  tables*  compares  milk  witii  grains,  cereals  and 
vegetables  as  contributors  of  protein,  fat  and  calories: 

MUk  With  Grains,  Cereals  and  Vegetables. 


Article. 


Milk  

Flonr  

Otttmeal,  . 

Bread  

Rice  

Macaroni, 
Rnear, 
Split  peas, 
Pcanut.<?.  .. 
Balsins.    . . 
^tate,  ... 


Weight. 


lb 

lb. 


1  1I>. 


lb. 

lb. 

lb. 

lb. 

lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 
1  lb. 


Protoin 
per  cent. 


10-11 
14-ie 
8-9 
6-8 
0-10 


24 
19 

3 

1.6 


Fat 
per  cent. 


29 
3 


Calorlea. 


300 

i,m-i,m 

l.fOO 
1,209 

tm 
hm 

l.SSO 
1,600 
1.900 

1.4O0 
350 


4  A  striking  fact  that  confronts  us  when  we  attempt  an  analysis 
of  food  consumption  is  that  as  a  people  we  are,  next  to  England,  the 
heaviest  consumers  of  animal  products  in  the  world.  Another  equally 
significant  fact  is  that,  at  the  present  time,  we  seem  to  be  the  hiirjiest 
consumers  of  fats  in  the  world.  The  following  table*  sets  forth  the 
average  conmimption  of  protein,  in  grams,  per  capita  per  day  in  the 
various  countries,  the  grams  of  protein  that  are  derived  from  animal 
sources,  ihe  grams  of  protein  from  plant  sources ;  the  consumption, 
in  grams,  of  fat  per  capita  per  day  in  the  various  count)  ios,  the  grams 
of  fat  derived  from  animal  sources,  the  grams^  of  fat  derived  from 
plant  sources,  the  carbohydrates  supplied  nnd  the  calories. 

19^''^  *****  BaMo«*«  for  2S10-1?14.   Tbey  appear  in  Smaller'a  Jahrbndt. 


1  


fie  Fmd  Bowrm%  of  ike  Natiom^ 


Halted  States, 
Butlaad,  ..... 
^^IdHMUBiy  J,  •  *  •  * ' 

rnwce,  

▲mtilft  


100 
101 
ff? 


TO 


flO 

# 

62 

m 

32 

B 

3S 

57 

M 

43 

It 

63 

M 

62 

11 

59 

1 


S 


i 


I; 


2* 


n 
u 

44 

27 
26 
62 
14 


76 
62 
56 
30 
22 
16 
12 
3 


I 


*H  2 


I 

& 

X) 

Z 


4 

10 
5 
14 

5 

10 
« 
11 


HO 
440 

385 
420 
400 
450 
430 
490 


2,960 
2,900 
2,700 
2,780 
2,500 
2.425 
2,600 
2,360 


2SL.hTi*  "^.*!Li!?'1fui^^Ll-"J«^^"S<*'i.  1910-1914.    Thej  aroear  In  Smaller'* 

to  nlHal  dMMcneca  te 


5.  That  the  high  food  value  of  milk  as  compared  with  other  animal 
products  has  been  recognized  in  the  past  is  reflected  in  the  following 
table  wMch  shows  that  thf  per  capita  consnmpticMi  of  milk  In  Phila- 
ddpMa  hm  on  the  whole  been  steaiily  increasing  from  1887  to  1915. 
Tim  basic  price  of  milk  has  been  nniform  from  1901  up  to  the  in 
creases  in  price  necessitated  by  tte  advance  in  prices  to  farmers  made 
in  the  antumn  of  1916.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  per  capita  con- 
sumption increased  only  and  most  rapidly  during  this  period  of 
stable  prices. 

Per  Omimtm  OommmpUm  of  MUh  lii  PhiladeljMa,  18871916, 


I 
I 

I 


1M6  ! 

1916  

1914,  

1913  

1912.  

1911  

Mm,   

IVIM,  

1907.  

1906  

'i^B*  •»•••  

iMi.   ,  . 

19ttl,  

1::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::: 

j.   

nn 

Mw,  I!"*!! 

1890  , 

1889  

 \  


1.907.518 
1,683,664 
1,657.810 
1,631.956 
1.606,105 
1.580.250 
1.549,008 
1,528,540 
1,502.685 
1.476.830 
1.450.976 
1,4?.8,318 
1.408,154 
1.378,624 
1.349.712 
1.321,408 
1,293,697 
1.267,464 
1.242.964 
1.218.464 
1.193,964 
1,169.464 
1,144.964 
1,120.464 
1.095.964 
1,071.464 
1.046.964 
1,022.464 
997.964 
973.4641 


178,428.898 
173.735.846 
173,418,806 
163.. -^67, 091 
162,500.579 
I50.fi:;8.sis 
144,T94.S6i 
140.:i62,996 
l.'^5.931.188 
129,651.082 
120,400,970 
111,897.365 
111.243,033 
104,720.142 
103.437,344 
102.966.S06 
99.680,074 
94,n9.082 
93.959.340 
96,478.913 
96,219.884 
98.539,164 
94;  5.39, 994 
91.278,774 
88,594,420 
89.257.884 
85,635,162 
82,212,160 
78.178.712 


105 
104 
106 
101 
109 
97 
94 
96 
92 
89 
81 
79 
80 

n 

78 
79 

78 
76 
77 
80 
82 
86 
84 
74 
SS 
86 
83 


lEW5 

An  analysis  of  these  factors  leads  inevitably  to  the  condnsion 
that  Increaaes  in  the  price  of  milk  to  the  consumer  will  lead  in  time 
and  especially  wiien  living  costs  pindi  to  the  snbstitiition  of  othar 
kinds  of  food  for  milk  and  milk  products.  This  snbdtitntion  neces- 
sarily takes  place  among  those  of  the  working  class  who  must  get 
their  foods  from  the  cheapest  sources.  These  other  foods  are  just  as 
valuable  for  adults.  That  this  competition  is  actual  and  not  the- 
oretical is  shown  by  the  decrease  in  sales  by  dealers  when  prices 
have  gone  up.  Thus  when  the  price  of  milk  was  increased  from  8  to 
9  ceits  per  quart  in  Philad^phia  in  the  autumn  of  1916^  the  sales 
by  seven  large  Philadelphia  dealers  fell  off  20%  at  first  and  after 
three  montlis  came  back  to  a  steady  loss  of  tive  per  cent. 

It  is,  therefore,  important  to  the  farmer,  the  dealer  and  the  con- 
sumer that  the  price  of  milk  should  be  kept  as  low  as  is  possible  in 
view  of  a  fair  and  economic  price  to  the  farmer  and  reasonable 
proftti  to  tiie  dealer  und^  most  c^^l  management.  Only  on  such 
a  basis  can  tlie  entire  dairy  industry  be  at  once  developed  and  sta- 
bilized. 


f 


6 


m 


SUMMARY  OF  RECOMMEHDATIOHS 


Prodttdioii  Costs 

The  Coiumissiou  lield  public  lieaiings  in  PhiladelpMa  on  November 
3  and  November  20  and  in  Baltimore  on  November  15.  At  tbese 
bearings  evidence  was  taken  from  dairymen  and  farmers  as  to  pro- 
ductions costs  as  well  as  evidence  on  other  matters  such  as  distribu 
tion  costs.  In  addition  lettery  wore  sent  out  asidng  farmers  to  send 
in  on  enclosed  I'ornis  the  itemized  cost  of  producing  milk.  The  re- 
sults of  this  investigation  aie  recorded  (pages  10  to  14).  As  to  tiie 
average  cost  of  producing  a  quart  of  milk  (page  11)  Mr.  Dnnlop  re- 
ported it  as  f .04  for  the  101  farmers  of  Blair  connty,  Pennsylvania. 
All  other  fanners  reportiiig  (86  in  number)  gave  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducing milk  as  f.05a  per  quart;  counting  the  101  farmers  of  Blair 
county  as  101  (making  180  in  all  i  the  cost  of  producing  a  quart  of 
milk  was  |.046.  An  to  the  average  cost  of  producing  a  quart  of  milk, 
10  reported  it  as  |.03;  35  as  $.04;  22  as  f.05;  and  7  as  f.06. 

It  must  be  renembered  that  these  costs  of  producing  milk  were 
for  the  year  ending  September  30, 1016.  Charts  and  figures  are  given 
(page  15)  showing  the  general  increase  in  the  labor  cost  and 
other  factors  in  milk  production  as  revealed  hy  figures  from  the  na- 
tional census  and  similar  state  and  national  reports.  Items  in  jm)- 
duction  costs  and  in  receipts  per  cow,  as  evidenced  by  special  investi- 
gations (pages  10  and  11)  and  as  given  by  a  selected  list  of  those  farm- 
ers  repljring  to  the  Commission's  questions  (page  16)  are  compared 
and  the  estimates  as  to  the  costs  of  producing  milk  during  the  present 
winter  as  given  by  Prof.  Fred  Kasmussen  are  included  (pages  17  and 
18).  Prices  received  for  milk  over  a  term  of  years  and  at  present 
are  also  given  (page  12). 

The  tenant  farmer  who  plays  a  very  vital  part  in  the  total  amounts 
of  milk  shipped  into  the  cities  concerned  usually  considers  his  costs 
to  be  lower  than  does  the  owner  farmer  (page  21). 

The  Commission  feels  that  the  sanitary  condition  of  milk  and  the 
per  cent,  of  solids  other  than  fats  should  both  receive  attention  in 
setting  the  purchase  price  for  milk  as  well  as  the  content  of  butter 
fat  (page  23).  The  supply  of  milk  must  be  permanent  and  adequate 
to  all  community  needs  and  to  this  end  the  price  cannot  permanently 
go  below  the  cost  of  production  and  tendencies  in  that  direction 
ought  to  be  foreseen  and  forestalled  (page  23).  In  determining  the 
price  that  dairymen  ought  to  receive  or  ask  such  facts  and  condl-  • 


G7 


tions  must  be  taken  into  consideration  as  the  possibility  of  extensimi 
to  furthei-  fields  of  supply;  the  production  costs  of  t^iant  fanners 
and  others  who  produce  milk  as  a  "side  issue^"  and  lie  lower  costs 
of  producing  milk  on  lands  peculiarly  fitted  to  tids  industry  (pages 
23  to  24). 

Profits  can  be  increased  i.  e.  production  costs  lowered:  (1)  by 
taking  definite  and  drastic  steps  to  eliminate  "boarders;"  (2)  by  in- 
creasing the  yield  per  cow,  per  herd  and  per  district;  (3)  by  co- 
operation among  dairy  farmers  in.  cow  testing  and  bull  aasMMdations; 
(4)  through  cooperative  action  with  governmental  authoriiaes  in  main- 
taining tlie  sanitary  standards  for  milk  production  as  outlined  in  this 
report  in  liie  section  dealing  with  the  Grading  of  Milk;  (5)  through 
scientific  feeding;  (6  ) through  the  keeping  of  proper  cost  records  and  ^ 
(7)  through  a  more  extended  use  of  county  farm  agents  (pages  24,  25 
and  26).  The  testimony  on  this  subject  of  the  dairy  experts,  Prof. 
Fred  Basmussen  of  State  College  of  P^uDUBylyania,  and  Mr.  G,  £.  Wol- 
cott,  Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industiy, 
United  States,  United  States  Departm^t  of  Agriculture,  are  given 
in  condensed  form  (pages  27  to  28). 

Milk  Distribution 

A  study  of  the  sources  from  which  in  flie  main  the  cities  of  the  •IHI^ 
three  states  concerned  draw  their  milk  supply  (page  29)  clearly  in- 
dicates that  all  the  cities  of  these  central  Atlantic  States  get  their 
milk  from  practically  the  same  territory  and  that  this  territory  is 
getting  to  be  at  ever  increasing  distances  from  the  city.  PkUadel- 
pliia,  for  instance,  gets  half  its  milk  from  a  distance  of  50  miles  or 
over,  and  60  per  cent  of  it  from  a  distanee  of  40  miles  or  over. 

Inasmuch  as  cases  are  now  pending  before  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  for  interstate  rates  and  before  the  Public  Service 
Commission  of  Pennsylvania  for  intrastate  rates,  the  Commission 
decided  it  was  inadvisable  to  make  a  special  investigation  of  exist- 
ing milk  rates.  On  pages  35  and  36  are  given  tlie  present  rates  and 
on  page  37  the  rates  proposed  1^  the  milk  dealers  of  Philadelphia. 
While  passing  no  judgment  on  the  reasonableness  of  the  rates  that 
now  exist  or  are  proposed,  the  Commission  does  call  attention  (page 
37)  to  the  importance  of  the  rates  to  the  farmer,  the  dealer  and  the 
consumer,  and  emphasizes  (pages  37  and  38)  the  relation  of  the  zone 
system  to  prices  farmers  in  all  the  sections  get  for  their  milk.  When, 
as  is  now  the  case,  the  price  of  milk  is  f.  o.  in  tlie  dty,  as  it  must  be 
to  get  a  common  baMs  for  rates  among  the  formers,  the  rate  ques- 
tion becomes  one  that  the  farmers  primarily  are  concerned  with. 

Tile  Commission  presents  (pages  3942)  the  itemized  elements  of 
cost  in  distributing  milk  as  presented  by  certain  dealers  of  Balti- 


more  and  l*Mladelphia.  These  co»t  itemsy  based  on  the  number  of 

quarts  handled  and  sold,  includ©  tte  cost  from  and  of  the  re- 
ceiving stations  for  pasteurization  and  bottling,  of  route  delivery,  of 
stable  expenses  and  of  ottice  expenses.  The  tables  also  present  the 
amount  of  milk  delivered  per  day,  the  total  amount  handled  in  1916, 
and  loss  by  evaporation  and  handling,  the  number  of  quarts  handled 
by  each  of  these  dealers  and  the  economies,  if,  any,  these  dealers  see 
in  the  elimination  of  duplication  of  delivery. 

The  Commission  recommends  that  the  milk  distribution  business 
be  regarded  as  a  public  utility,  giving  its  reasons  therfor  (pages  43 
lo  44)  discussing  the  alternatives  thereto  (page  45)  and  giving  the 
new  duties  and  privil^^  that  will  devolve  upon  the  dealers  and 
the  state  if  this  principle  is  recognised  (pages  45  and  46) . 

Tke  Oommisfflon  points  out  the  value  of  a  steady  price  to  the  con- 
sumer (page  46)  and  recommends  (page  46)  that  the  common  carriers 
centering  in  the  leading  cities  of  the  states  concerned  make  available 
to  the  press  each  week  the  total  receipts  for  milk  for  the  current 
week.  The  afreement  made  by  the  carriers  when  this  recommenda- 
tion was  submitted  to  them  is  given  (page  40). 

f%%  Sinr^us  MiOi  Supply 

Surplus  milk,  that  is  the  excess  of  milk  produced  at  certain  seasons 
of  the  year  above  the  normal  consumption,  has  a  very  definite  re- 
lution  to  the  price  that  is  and  can  be  paid  to  the  fanners  for  milk 
not  only  in  the  months  of  surplus  but  also  in  tiie  months  of  scarcity. 
The  Commission  has  given  (page  47)  careful  consideration  to 
the  possibilities  of  getting  rid  of  this  surplus.  These  possibilities 
can  be  reduced  to  two:  first,  storing  it  for  several  months;  second, 
special  demands  for  milk  at  the  time  of  the  surplus  season.  The 
irst  can  be  effected  by  changing  the  milk  into  butter,  cheese  or 
condensed  milk  or  by  storage  of  the  cream.  The  possible  special 
uses  of  milk  during  the  surplus  milk  season  are  for  ice  cream, 
for  confectionary  for  condensed  milk  and  similar  purposes. 

After  consideration  of  the  facts  as  to  the  manufacture  and  pro- 
duction of  butter,  cheese  and  condensed  milk,  the  Commission  finds 
that  in  these  forms  there  is  little  hope  for  the  disposal  of  the  sur- 
plus. Likewise  the  use  of  whole  milk  for  ice  cream,  for  confectionery 
and  for  similar  special  uses,  does  not  come  at  the  time  of  greatest 
surplus  but  as  is  the  case  with  confectionery  at  the  time  of  greaitest 
scarcity  or  as  with  ice  cream  right  after  the  season  of  greatest  sur- 
plus. Moreover,  both  of  these  are  year  long  industries  and  not 
essentially  seasonal  industries.  After  consideration  of  these  matters, 
the  Commission  concludes  (page  51)  that  the  principal  factor  in 
solving  the  surplus  problem  is  to  reduce  the  surplus  as  far  as  pos- 
sible by  a  greater  proportion  of  winter  dairying—In  other  word»— 


m 


by  having  a  large  proportion  of  cows  freshen  in  and  around  August, 
September  and  October.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  a  much  grater 
dillereuce  must  exist  between  summer  and  winter  prices  for  milk 
than  now  exists. 

Gxades  of  XOk 

One  of  the  important  duties  of  the  Commission  has  been  to  study 
the  quality  and  wholesomeness  of  the  milk  supply  for  ditect  con- 
sumption in  the  various  municipalities  of  the  states  conwmed  in 
Its  relation  to  wholesomenesB  as  food  and  as  to  prices  (page  52) 

The  main  reason  for      grading  of  milk  is  that  Ihe  consumer  may 
get  what  he  pays  fo^||||i|at  the  producer  may  get  a  price  based  on 
what  he  really  seUs.   The  present  inspection  of  milk,  esr)ecially  as 
to  its  sanitary  condition,  is  entirely  inadequate  as  evidenced  by  the 
situtation  in  Philadelphia  (pages  52  and  53).  The  Oommisffloi  lecom- 
mends  the  adoption  of  uniform  grades  of  milk.   In  addition  to  cer- 
tified  milk,  the  Commission  recomm^ds  thiee  grades,  grades  A,  B  and 
C.  Standards  for  each  of  these  grades  are  given  (page  53)  as  are  the 
recommendations  for  soMs  oter  than  fat  and  for  fat  (page  54). 
Present  legal  standards  are  corapareil  Tsith  the  minimum  require- 
ments recommend  (pages  54  and  55).  As  to  the  Ucensing  and  inspect- 
ion of  milk,  which  is  the  only  means  of  assuring  proper  standards  in 
the  production  and  distribution  of  milk  and  in  the  purchase  and 
sales  price  for  milk,  the  Commission  recomm^ids  (page  55)  that: 
(1)  permits  should  be  issued  to  producers  and  (2)  to  all  distributors 
and  receivers  of  milk;  (3)  that  all  milk  brought  into  the  state  from 
outside  must  be  inspected  and  sold  under  the  provisions  of  a  si)ecial 
permit  to  be  issued  by  the  proper  state  authority;  (4)  that  the 
basis  of  inspection  should  be  the  government  s  scoie  card  or  Its 
equivalent  system;  (5)  that  producers  piemises  ^ould  be  inspected 
as  to  sanitary  conditions  at  lea«*t  three  times  a  year;  (6)  physical 
ezaminatlmi  of  all  animals  producing  milk  for  sale  at  least  twice  a 
year  under  the  direction  of  the  proper  state  board;  (7)  tliat  the  in- 
spectors shall  be  appointed  by  the  State  Board  of  Agricultui-e  or 
Agricultural  Commission  for  a  list  of  men  submitted  by  the  State 
Agricultural  College  and  (8)  that  milk  testers  shall  he  Uemab^ 
after  proper  examination.   The  Oommls8io&  apimves  in  gimeral 
principles  a  law  (pages  56—61)  incorporating  these  various  sugges- 
tions as  drawn  up  for  enactment  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  Food  Value  of  Milk  in  its  Relation  to  Price 
Milk  is  an  absolute  requisite  for  children  (page  62)  and  as  com- 
pared with  other  animal  products  (page  62  )  it  is  relatively  a 
very  cheap  food.  A  quart  of  milk  is  the  equal  in  food  value  of  eight 
eggs.    Thus  with  mUk  at  nine  cents  a  quart  and  eggs  at  forty- 


fl?e  cents  a  dozen,  the  consumer  pays  3J  times  as  much  for  the 
same  food  value  when  buying  eggs  when  buying  milk.  With  round 
steak  at  28  cents  a  pounds  the  consumer  pays  2.3  times  as  much  for 
the  same  value  as  is  found  in  a  quart  of  milk  at  nine  cents.  But 
when  milk  is  compared  with  foods  available  from  plant  sources 
(page  6S)  it  is  found  to  be  not  as  cheap  a  food  as  are  plant  foods. 
And  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  as  a  pei^Ie  are,  next  to  England,  the 
heaviest  consumers  animal  products  in  the  world  (page  64)  the 
lower  food  value  of  milk  as  compared  wilh  vegetable  sources  does  lead 
to  a  diminution  in  the  amount  of  milk  actually  consumed  when  the 
price  is  distinctly  raised.  This  evidenced  by  the  falling  off  of  consump- 
tion when  the  price  of  milk  was  raised  last  autumn  in  Philadelphia 
(page  — )  Moreover,  the  per  capita  consumption  of  milk  increased 
rapidly  during  the  years  from  1001  to  1015  when  the  price  was  stable 
at  ei^t  caits  per  fuart  (page  64).  IlMiMlttportant,  there- 
fore, to  the  farmer,  the  dealer  and  the  consumer  that  the  price  of 
milk  should  be  kept  as  low  as  possible  in  view  of  a  fair  and  economic 
price  to  the  farmer  and  a  reasonable  profit  to  the  dealer  under  care- 
ful manag^ent  Only  on  such  a  basis  can  the  entire  dairy  industry 


The  Commission  does  not  at  this  time  name  those  institutions  and 
individuals  to  whom  we  are  and  have  been  under  special  obligations 
for  assistance  of  all  kinds  and  for  the  splendid  spirit  of  co-operation 
that  made  it  possible  for  the  Commission  to  get  facts  from  whatever 
source  it  desired  the  facts.  Farmery  iealers,  ^pert%  common  car- 
riers, educational  institutions  and  the  individual  members  of  the 
staffs  of  educational  institutions,  have  all  responded  to  every  re- 
quest of  the  Commission  lor  assistance  or  information  with  rare 
exceptions.  Moreover  this  *jP||erous  response  was  made  despite 
the  fact  that  it  was  often  accompanied  by  no  little  money  cost  or 
personal  sacrifice.  Acknowledgment  is  given  in  most  cordial  terms 
for  aU  this  amstance.  Bpedal  credit  must  be  given  to  Instructors 
Bex  !Pugwil,  E.  H.  Lansburgh,  C.  E.  BdteU  and  Bruce  B.  Mudgett  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  who  gave  largely  and  freely  of  their 
time  in  compiling  data  and  tables  and  making  charts.  Special  ack- 
nowledgment is  also  due  to  those  who,  through  Mr.  Clarence  Sears 
Kates,  gave  the  financial  assistance  necessary  fo  rhaving  stenographic 
records  taken  of  public  hearings  an^  special  investigations  made 
without  which  the  Commission's  work  would  h^?e  been  unavailing. 


Acknowledgments 


Date  Due 


^  i 

 "  -  - 

1 

i 

1 

*  ■ 

! 

\  1 

 1 

1 

1 

1 

f 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


140381 


.  JAN  3  li3B  i^V*vW;e<N^^ — 
/I  (i^io       t  /    ^A)  J«rr«  193b 


JUL  2  3  1928 


